PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS
Comments
-
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.
Good luck with this Shamrock7.;)The one and only "Dizzy Di"
0 -
Well not looking good I'm afraid. The FOS have been told by the Broker it is all down to Welcome which means I am back to square one as they are denying all liability. C
ould someone please advise me the court route as unsure and cost involved. Thanks for your help with this. The FOS havent yet phoned to confirm they can't go further but due to the regulation time I dont see what else can be done. The FLA are no use either so far. So disheartened and fed up!!!0 -
I've got a claim in with my local county court at the moment - will be happy to chat it through with you... I'll send you a PM:AIgnorance can be cured, but stupid is forever!:A
Please note: Nothing that I post constitutes professional financial or legal advice.0 -
Paolo 1980 Having read the response from Santander I think you may very well have a argument to go back to them with a "letter before action"... I'm NOT a lawyer however so please don't think that I am giving (or purporting to give legal advice).
"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."
Santander are ADMITTING that the sales assistans "routinely discuss" the key features and significant exclusions (i.e. they admit that they are obliged to do this), yet you have said (in your letter) that they did not do this in your case... So IMHO they've pretty much held their hand up!:AIgnorance can be cured, but stupid is forever!:A
Please note: Nothing that I post constitutes professional financial or legal advice.0 -
Yeah and one minute they say it was non advised and then they state they discuss the exclusions etc.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/factsheets/pdfs/factsheet_sales.pdf0 -
That's a very good point ... They also say "you have no recollection of being given any clear explanation" when in actual fact your letter is quite clear that you weren't given any explanation, period!marshallka wrote: »Yeah and one minute they say it was non advised and then they state they discuss the exclusions etc.
Their respons was obviously written by someone in their legal department with the purpose of making you think that you don't have a leg to stand on. For what it's worth I'd send them another letter, making it clear that if they still feel unable to respond, you will take immediate action to reclaim the money through the county court and that interest will continue to accrue on a daily basis until settlement or judgement.:AIgnorance can be cured, but stupid is forever!:A
Please note: Nothing that I post constitutes professional financial or legal advice.0 -
Just reread what they have replied and they state the exclusions were discussed at the point of sale??? I thought the point of sale was when they said the customer wanted the PPI and signed for it. Its very difficult to determine here in what they say I think.
Advised sales are explained here
You give advice when you make a personal recommendation to the customer and in doing so you
are required to explain why the particular product and/or provider would meet his or her demands
and needs. This will be specific and individual advice to the customer and should not be generic.
None advised is explained here
A non-advised sale is when no personal recommendation is made to the customer.
The customer must, however, still receive sufficient information on the product to enable them to
make an informed decision as to whether it meets their own demands and needs.
An example of making a non-advised sale could be where:
• The customer decides or knows the specific product they want – this could be in a similar way
to an ‘execution only’ sale of an investment product;
They get away with so much saying they are non advised legally. This advised/non advised etc needs to be determined properly as its very misleading sometimes to us mere mortals.0 -
The currnet rules on non advised and advised only apply to post GI regulation and not before then. There is no requirement for a statement of demands and needs. In most cases the policy schedule would be sufficient to be issued.
However, if it is similar to investment cases then on those, we have to issue a letter at the time stating that the case is on execution onl, what that means, including that you dont get the usual protections given on an advice case.
With execution only, you do usually cover the key exclusions and benefits, albeit in letter form normally.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
I knew you would be along to put us right on this one dunstonh.:cool:The currnet rules on non advised and advised only apply to post GI regulation and not before then. There is no requirement for a statement of demands and needs. In most cases the policy schedule would be sufficient to be issued.
However, if it is similar to investment cases then on those, we have to issue a letter at the time stating that the case is on execution onl, what that means, including that you dont get the usual protections given on an advice case.
With execution only, you do usually cover the key exclusions and benefits, albeit in letter form normally.
I think "non advised" never actually existed in reality though.
A little info here on executed sales ...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/51/investment-disputes.htm0 -
Well another update and the plot thickens. If I'm right about this it sounds like The FOS are really sorting out this we are not regulated excuse. I got another final response today after pestering Welcome with 2 more cutting letters.
I got a phonecall from a lovely girl at The FOS today after basically giving up hope yesterday. Here is the story: They asked me for both the underwriter-Aviva and the broker-Direct Group about 4 weeks ago. They pursued the underwriter first and got a we having nothing on file response.
Then they pursued the Broker who said it is the loan company Welcome who sold the policy so nothing to do with us. I thought this would be the brick wall and that I could only now take this to court. However...the girl has informed me that regardless of the regulation, because the complaint has gone through this process of underwriter/Broker, Welcome can now be held responsible and they will get an adjudicator to follow it up.
They will ask Welcome for the file after pursuing Aviva again as they are not happy with getting the runaround.Does this sound right? It feels too good to be true. If so I could finally be on to a winner. Its like a rollercoaster!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards