PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

I have now completed my complaint for the FOS who say they will look into this. My original complaint was the ppi but after being TOLD it was sold by Freedom Finance and me informing the FOS of this he told me there was nothing he could do so i then stated that the rule of 78 was applied and it was extortinate credit etc and he said he would take a look. I had the complaint form last week but have only just completed it after receiving me SAR from firstplus and have today called the FOS to aks if they can relook into the sale of the ppi as i now think Firstplus sold it to me.

As i said earlier the actual application does not tally with the actual agreement so i have stated that in my eyes this was added by Firstplus after i had already applied for my loan without this amount. Does anyone think i will get this case upheld with the FOS. I have sent a list of sooo many discrepancies with Firstplus. If it turns out he agrees Firstplus applied the ppi (as it looks) then how can they prove otherwise. My application has no mention of this Loan £17,000 over 10 year which is 120 months and then agreement with ppi (the repayments are still the same as we applied for - £280 per month) but over 160 months because of the ppi. We were then told that it was a condition of the loan by FIRSTPLUS.

We took this in jan 2000 and settled in april 2003

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

I have now completed my complaint for the FOS who say they will look into this. My original complaint was the ppi but after being TOLD it was sold by Freedom Finance and me informing the FOS of this he told me there was nothing he could do so i then stated that the rule of 78 was applied and it was extortinate credit etc and he said he would take a look. I had the complaint form last week but have only just completed it after receiving me SAR from firstplus and have today called the FOS to aks if they can relook into the sale of the ppi as i now think Firstplus sold it to me.

As i said earlier the actual application does not tally with the actual agreement so i have stated that in my eyes this was added by Firstplus after i had already applied for my loan without this amount. Does anyone think i will get this case upheld with the FOS. I have sent a list of sooo many discrepancies with Firstplus. If it turns out he agrees Firstplus applied the ppi (as it looks) then how can they prove otherwise. My application has no mention of this Loan £17,000 over 10 year which is 120 months and then agreement with ppi (the repayments are still the same as we applied for - £280 per month) but over 160 months because of the ppi. We were then told that it was a condition of the loan by FIRSTPLUS.

We took this in jan 2000 and settled in april 2003

just as a matter of interest - what is freedom finances full name on the correspondence which appears to show them as the loan seller?

Also, have the FOS stated they will definately look at your complaint for you given the date of taking it out was Jan 2000 ?

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

just as a matter of interest - what is freedom finances full name on the correspondence which appears to show them as the loan seller?

Also, have the FOS stated they will definately look at your complaint for you given the date of taking it out was Jan 2000 ?

it doesn't state a loan seller on our actual application. On print outs of firstplus's computer of banks details, telephone conversations, all the data at the top it says "source Freedom Finance limited or Freedom Finance plc.

The FOS WERE looking at the rule of 78 to check it was applied correctly and then this morning i spoke to someone there again and told them after receiving my sar that i think there are lots of discrepancies with the actual loan and ppi and she said to send everything to them. I had the complaint form last week and yes, they do know it was back in 2000 but settled in 2003

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

it doesn't state a loan seller on our actual application. On print outs of firstplus's computer of banks details, telephone conversations, all the data at the top it says "source Freedom Finance limited or Freedom Finance plc.

The FOS WERE looking at the rule of 78 to check it was applied correctly and then this morning i spoke to someone there again and told them after receiving my sar that i think there are lots of discrepancies with the actual loan and ppi and she said to send everything to them. I had the complaint form last week and yes, they do know it was back in 2000 but settled in 2003

hmmm funny that, according to companies house Freedom Finance Limited didn't change their name to Freedom Finance plc until 29.11.2002

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

hmmm funny that, according to companies house Freedom Finance Limited didn't change their name to Freedom Finance plc until 29.11.2002

most of the documents are headed with the "source Freedom Finance PLC"
List here of Firstplus printed documents and their heading
Applications enquiry docments PLC
General enquiry documents Limited
Transaction enquiry documents Limited
Status details Limited
Commission details PLC
Contact details PLC
Diary manager PLC

What are thinking?????????????
Have they been selling loans maybe as Petermb once said he thought

rosemahairy

tiggrae wrote: »

Hi there, it really depends upon when you took out the loan / ppi as to whether DAF were covered by the financial services authority / FOS

I was about to send my court forms when Citizens advise rang me. I have been using their help to communicate with DAF about reclaiming PPI. My car was purchased in 2004 however they tell me that although DAF were not under the FOS the insurance company (which is a seperate entity of yes car credit its not actually their insurance they get commision of someone else for selling it) were regulated. According to CAB insurance companies are regulated and so the FOS will deal with it. Citizens advice are therefor sending my complaint about DAF to the Ombudsman my arguement they are putting to the FOS is the issue of them telling me it was compulsory in their words "its the law" and the fact my income at the time was half self employed and the other half was full time permanent but i had only been with the company for 5months so it was invalid (they wouldnt have paid out had i needed them to. I am going to see how i get on with the ombudsman but it fails there im off to court but i was warned they defend very hard. Il keep everyone posted on what happens. i just thought it was worth everyone knowing about the insurance thing as i know many of you like me are stuck because of comapnies not being regualted at the time. Citizens advise do know their stuff so it cant be far wrong and they are going ahed filing the complaint with the ombudsman so anyway il keep you updated...

tiggrae

rosemahairy wrote: »

I was about to send my court forms when Citizens advise rang me. I have been using their help to communicate with DAF about reclaiming PPI. My car was purchased in 2004 however they tell me that although DAF were not under the FOS the insurance company (which is a seperate entity of yes car credit its not actually their insurance they get commision of someone else for selling it) were regulated. According to CAB insurance companies are regulated and so the FOS will deal with it. Citizens advice are therefor sending my complaint about DAF to the Ombudsman my arguement they are putting to the FOS is the issue of them telling me it was compulsory in their words "its the law" and the fact my income at the time was half self employed and the other half was full time permanent but i had only been with the company for 5months so it was invalid (they wouldnt have paid out had i needed them to. I am going to see how i get on with the ombudsman but it fails there im off to court but i was warned they defend very hard. Il keep everyone posted on what happens. i just thought it was worth everyone knowing about the insurance thing as i know many of you like me are stuck because of comapnies not being regualted at the time. Citizens advise do know their stuff so it cant be far wrong and they are going ahed filing the complaint with the ombudsman so anyway il keep you updated...

If it's a claim for mis selling then it is always the company who 'sold' the policy in the first place and not the actual insurers !! As for taking them to court, my experience is they don't want to and would probably make an offer

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

most of the documents are headed with the "source Freedom Finance PLC"
List here of Firstplus printed documents and their heading
Applications enquiry docments PLC
General enquiry documents Limited
Transaction enquiry documents Limited
Status details Limited
Commission details PLC
Contact details PLC
Diary manager PLC

What are thinking?????????????
Have they been selling loans maybe as Petermb once said he thought

Well they obviously haven't sent you any original documentation - if freedom had sold you the loan /policy surely there would be some form of handover document from freedom to firstplus on Freedon's headed paper !!

rosemahairy

tiggrae wrote: »

If it's a claim for mis selling then it is always the company who 'sold' the policy in the first place and not the actual insurers !! As for taking them to court, my experience is they don't want to and would probably make an offer

i said that to Citizens advise as i thought that too but they tell me that the salemen in selling the insurances are acting on behalf of the insurance company as well as yes car credit for the car element of the loan agereement, if the insurance company didnt want to be held in anyway accountable they should not have others selling it and doing the applications? They have sent the compalint to Ombudsman i will let ya know what they say, worth a shot before court that will be stressful

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

Well they obviously haven't sent you any original documentation - if freedom had sold you the loan /policy surely there would be some form of handover document from freedom to firstplus on Freedon's headed paper !!

I know all this but there is not. Who has to prove what to the FOS IF they intervene. Do you think they will given my discrepancies.