PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

shamrock7 · 20 August 2009 at 3:57PM

The latest is I got a phonecall today from the FOS to say the underwriter Aviva have stated having nothing to do with selling the policy in an email to them. Things seem to be moving along as they only contacted Aviva on Monday.The girl at the FOS is now complaining to the broker, Direct Group who were under GISC at the time. Fingers crossed! I hope I get compensation too..........

marshallka · 20 August 2009 at 4:29PM

shamrock7 wrote: »

The latest is I got a phonecall today from the FOS to say the underwriter Aviva have stated having nothing to do with selling the policy in an email to them. Things seem to be moving along as they only contacted Aviva on Monday.The girl at the FOS is now complaining to the broker, Direct Group who were under GISC at the time. Fingers crossed! I hope I get compensation too..........

Did you not complain to the broker in the first instance? Was it just Welcome that you complained to in the first place and never tried the broker that sold it? I am confused now????

shamrock7 · 23 August 2009 at 8:11PM

Hi Marshallka,
I tried Welcome but got a big fat no way as they were not regulated on 04/02/03. They were however on the 26/02/03! Fuming I gave up hope when Barloo69 suggested Underwriter/ Broker route.The chap at the FOS wanted the underwriters name firstly and he complained to Aviva.
I got a phonecall from a girl at the FOS on Thursday morning saying Aviva had said nothing to do with them and had no file and that they were now contacting the Broker who was Direct Group. They have sent off the letter and I received confirmation this weekend. Very quick. This is a new process so she couldnt advise me of successes but worth a try! If not I shall be on here asking for court advice as no way are they keeping my money after this!x

marshallka · 23 August 2009 at 8:27PM

shamrock7 wrote: »

Hi Marshallka,
I tried Welcome but got a big fat no way as they were not regulated on 04/02/03. They were however on the 26/02/03! Fuming I gave up hope when Barloo69 suggested Underwriter/ Broker route.The chap at the FOS wanted the underwriters name firstly and he complained to Aviva.
I got a phonecall from a girl at the FOS on Thursday morning saying Aviva had said nothing to do with them and had no file and that they were now contacting the Broker who was Direct Group. They have sent off the letter and I received confirmation this weekend. Very quick. This is a new process so she couldnt advise me of successes but worth a try! If not I shall be on here asking for court advice as no way are they keeping my money after this!x

So who actually sold you the PPI? You say the "broker" Direct group". ALways first try the person that sold the PPI to you. I assume then that Welcome were the lender, Aviva the insurer and you went through Direct Group (being the broker) to get the loan???

shamrock7 · 24 August 2009 at 7:47AM

To be honest everything was completed through Welcome and they filled in the boxes for PPI and Healthcare which I was made to think was compulsory to the loan being agreed. They are the ones who also dealt with the Broker and Underwriter. Do you think I have a case with this?

marshallka · 24 August 2009 at 8:17AM

shamrock7 wrote: »

To be honest everything was completed through Welcome and they filled in the boxes for PPI and Healthcare which I was made to think was compulsory to the loan being agreed. They are the ones who also dealt with the Broker and Underwriter. Do you think I have a case with this?

If Welcome did everything for you then you had no broker

.

What usually happens is you call a company for a loan. This would be your broker (unless you go straight to the loan company yourself). The broker then can look around for a the loan you want and fills out your applications etc (at which time the PPI is usually added). The broker then passes the details to the loan company who arrange the loan and PPI. You then get your money from the lender and pay the lender but it was the broker who actually arranged it all for you and sold you the PPI if it happened like this. The insurer usually has nothing to do with the broker BUT if the broker is not under jurisdiction of FOS then FOS are trying to make insurers responsible for the actions of their agents I think. It seems to me that IF you had a broker in the first place you should have complained to them firstly and this has taken you back a few months.

Who told you to first complain to the lender?

If Welcome are the "lender" and they did everything then I find it hard to understand why a broker was used at all. A broker is only used if to do all the forms for you.

Also just noticed it was quite a while ago you complained to Welcome. Did they send you a final response a long time ago and you send it into FOS within the timescale? DId Welcome tell you to complain to the broker as this is usually the norm if a broker was used too? If they did not then are you sure that there was in fact a broker used?

Could you perhaps mean "underwriter" being "Direct Group" and not broker???

shamrock7 · 24 August 2009 at 9:46AM

marshallka wrote: »

If Welcome did everything for you then you had no broker.

What usually happens is you call a company for a loan. This would be your broker (unless you go straight to the loan company yourself). The broker then can look around for a the loan you want and fills out your applications etc (at which time the PPI is usually added). The broker then passes the details to the loan company who arrange the loan and PPI. You then get your money from the lender and pay the lender but it was the broker who actually arranged it all for you and sold you the PPI if it happened like this. The insurer usually has nothing to do with the broker BUT if the broker is not under jurisdiction of FOS then FOS are trying to make insurers responsible for the actions of their agents I think. It seems to me that IF you had a broker in the first place you should have complained to them firstly and this has taken you back a few months.

Who told you to first complain to the lender?

If Welcome are the "lender" and they did everything then I find it hard to understand why a broker was used at all. A broker is only used if to do all the forms for you.

Also just noticed it was quite a while ago you complained to Welcome. Did they send you a final response a long time ago and you send it into FOS within the timescale? DId Welcome tell you to complain to the broker as this is usually the norm if a broker was used too? If they did not then are you sure that there was in fact a broker used?

Could you perhaps mean "underwriter" being "Direct Group" and not broker???

I just phoned just now and The underwriter was Aviva formerly Norwich Union, The Broker for the Insurancies was Direct Group and the broker for the loan was Bright Finance. The reason there was a lapse before the FOS took my complaint was that Welcome told me as they were not regulated the FOS wouldnt look at it.
I was also sent a final response from Compliance saying they wouldn't refund. After reading through posts on here I realised cases were being looked at in some cases and decided to contact the FOS explaining this. Sure enough they told me they couldnt proceed as Welcome were regulated 3 Weeks AFTER my loan. I was then advised on here to go through the Underwriter/ Broker route. The FOS has upheld this as its a new procedure and they want to try it. Im basically following advice as my knowledge is limited on this

Paolo1980 · 2 September 2009 at 7:59PM

Ok I've now had a reply to my second letter to Santander regarding PPI taken out on a Dorothy Perkins card in 2001. This was my second letter to Santander for which I must thank PaulinWeston:

Thank you for your letter dated 28th July 2009.

I have been advised that in purporting to advise upon and supply contracts of insurance to me and to solicit policies of insurance for the insurers you assumed duties to me of a fiduciary nature. As a fiduciary you were required to act loyally to me and not to put yourselves in a position where you had a conflict of interest with me without disclosing that conflict of interest. Further you were under a duty to ensure that I had been furnished with full knowledge of all the material circumstances and of the nature and extent of your interest in the sale of this policy; see Wilson v Hurstanger [2007] EWCA Civ 299 at paragraph 34.

I believe therefore that as well as misrepresenting the nature of the policy to me, you sold it to me by means of pressure and misleading and/or incorrect advice given by your sales agent in the Dorothy Perkins Store in that:

a. You failed to advise me that cheaper insurance by means of a one off or periodic payments was available at the time if I wanted PPI.

b. You never explained to me that the PPI was purchased at a premium which would attract interest.

c. No information was provided to me of comparative costs of similar products from companies un-associated with you.

d. Your agent did not explain the terms and conditions of the policy and whether I would be able to claim on all parts of the policy.

e. Your agent did not ask about my medical history.

f. Your agent did not explain medical exclusions on the policy i.e. what medical conditions were and were not covered by the policy.

g. The PPI was sold with a view to meeting sales targets and providing bonuses and commissions for the salesman and staff rather than to helping me to achieve a better financial position. Therefore a conflict of interest existed in respect of the sale of insurance to me.

I would also ask you to disclose to me whether commission was paid by the insurers to you for the sale of the insurance policy and I ask you to disclose the underwriting sheet for the transaction to me. If you received a commission it should be paid to me.

You may consider that since some of the charges were levied more than six years ago, part my claim may be time barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and you might want to rely on this to dismiss my claim. However, please be advised that should we not reach an agreement over repayment, I will proceed with the claim under section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which deals with postponement of the limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake. The mistake being that I was unaware that I had any remedy until the recent publicity concerning mis-selling of PPI.

My claim against Santander Cards

I require you please, to repay me all the sums I paid for the payment protection insurance which was misrepresented to me and mis-sold to me by way of equitable compensation (Wilson v Hurstanger [2007] EWCA Civ 299 at paragraph 49).

This amounts to a total of £274.34.

Further pursuant to the County Courts Act 1981 section 69, I claim interest at the APR of 29.9%. It is just and equitable that interest be repaid at 29.9% from the date each payment was made until the date of judgment or sooner payment because the money paid would otherwise have gone towards discharging the indebtedness under the credit agreement.

Please repay me the cost of the mis-sold insurance and interest within 21 days from the date of this letter otherwise I will have no alternative to commence proceedings against Santander Cards UK Ltd. to recover this sum.

In addition, if you received a commission from the insurers concerned you must also repay this in full to me, with interest at 29.9% from the date you received it.

Please note that should legal action become necessary, interest will continue to accrue until the date of judgement or earlier settlement.

Yours sincerely

And their reply:

I write in response to your letter dated 5 August 2009.

After reviewing your recent letter and all previous correspondence, it is my understanding that your concerns are in relation to the sale of Account Cover Insurance.

As our policies have always been offered on a non-advised basis, once you has decided to take the product, by signing the Account Cover section of your Credit Agreement, a policy summary and policy document were mailed to you. This then provided you with the opportunity to review and compare it to that of any other policies on the marketplace at the time. The terms and conditions of the policy state that we offer a 30 day no quibble guarantee where the product may be cancelled, and any premiums refunded (subject to no claim being made). In addition, the conditions of your agreement also confirm that any outstanding balances are subject to an interest charge.

You have explained that you have no recollection of being given any clear explanation in relation to the insurance on 21 September 2001. At the point of sale the sales assistants routinely discuss the key features and significant exclusions of the policy. However I am sure you will appreciate it is not possible to discuss every eventuality and therefore, the decision whether to proceed or not is ultimately down to the individual customer.

However, if the terms and conditions received differed to the information provided in store, then we would expect that this be brought to our attention at this point in time. As you did not inform us that this was the case, we were unaware that you believed that the insurance was mis-sold and the insurance remained active on the account.

With regard to ascertaining personal information from you to determine your suitability for the product, this is a requirement of an advised sale under the FSA’s ICOB regulations and our insurance sales have always been non-advised. We have always given our customers the details of the policy and let them make an educated decision if the policy is suitable.

I would also reiterate that suffering from a pre-existing medical condition would not have made the policy unsuitable. As previously confirmed, having an illness prior to the cover being taken out does not exclude you from the insurance, this simply may mean that you cannot claim for this condition in the future. This information is clearly detailed in your policy and is inline with standard industry practice. Additionally, this is only one aspect of the policy and you would have still been covered by the other benefits of the insurance.

I appreciate your comments surrounding sales targets, bonuses and commission earned by our store staff, however, I would advise that although sales assistants are incentivised , they are trained to provide the correct information and to ensure that customers are fully aware of what they are signing for. Unfortunately, I am unable to provide you with the details of the commission received, as information of this nature is privy to the business only.

In light of the above and the comments in our previous letter dated 28 July 2009,I do feel that we have fully addressed all the issues you have raised. Therefore, our decision remains the same and we are unable to refund any of the insurance premiums charged to the above account.

Whilst I appreciate that this may not be the outcome you were expecting, I trust that I have addressed all of the concerns that you raised. However if you remain dissatisfied, you should note that we have now reached a stage of deadlock as out internal complaints procedures have now been exhausted. You may now refer the matter to the Finance and Leasing Association, details of which were enclosed in our previous letter.

Any correspondence relating to your complaint can be sent to Santander Cards UK Ltd, PO Box 700, Leeds LS99 2BD

Ok so I've reached the end of the road with Santander directly. Any thoughts on the FLA, many posts seem to suggest they are a waste of time. Has anyone actually persued one of these claims any further than this?

It's very frustrating is it's only for a relatively small amount, yet the premiums alone are £274.34 against a card balance of £370. Taking interest into account, had this insurance never been taken out there would little or nothing on this card!! Apologies for the lengthy post but I think this probably the type of response many have had or will be receiving.

di3004 · 2 September 2009 at 8:11PM

Hi there,

Wow you done a fab letter, and sorry to hear of the outcome on this on their response, but I would give the FOS a ring on this, even if they have said before they are unable to deal with this.

You may note a thread posted today in regards of the FOS having cases resubmitted, on earlier cases not covered by GISC/FSA, give them a go by ringing them, see what they have to say, otherwise contact the FLA.

From what I have read on here not everyone are successful through the FLA, but again some have been.

Start by ringing the FOS first and take it from there, good luck.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/index.html

For the FLA here:
http://www.fla.org.uk/fla/contact/index.jsp

Please let us know what they say, that would be helpful, cheers so much.;)

shamrock7 · 10 September 2009 at 10:25AM

Just to let you all know still waiting for my Welcome response! They have written again to say Sorry we were fair and so was PPI. So bl**dy angry as they were anything but. FLA and FOS trying for me so I will update asap. I am certainly taking them to court if this fails as I feel so hard done by.

PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free