Mortgage PPI from 2004

[vint1954]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Sorry guys, one more question re this. When I write to Adminicle, should I do it recorded delivery??

Thanks again

You can do, or get proof of posting from the PO. It's free

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Thanks vint! Posted my letter yesterday recorded delivery, so everything crossed now!!!

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Ok, I am wondering if I am onto plums with this claim!

I had looked at the various companies invloved in the sale of my policy, Capital Mortgage Connections, D&D Homecare, Adminicle and Assurant. I don't think any of these companies were FSA regulated at the time my policy was sold. I'm actually very confused about the whole thing now as there seems to be a whole lot of name changing etc going on which is really frustrating!!! I am thinking noone will take responsibilty for this and I am wasting my time??



I forgot to add, do the FOS take into account the relevant regulations at the time (ie they were members of the GISC at the time of the sale??)

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Hi

My two pennyworth on this if you have time. That £4+ grand is worth a bit of time and patience imo.

I see where Di is going with this and I think perhaps you are getting confused by what is lets admit it a good financial ploy to hide who did what to whom.

Reading the thread I am unclear if you have a SAR done. These can sometimes turn up stuff that you hadnt realised with the passage of time had happened. If you have this my apologies.

For me I would be concentrating on finding out who exactly the underwriter was. The reason behind this is underwriters after considerable time of shirking responsibilities are starting to cough. If the OC isnt liable then someone is as someone took the money. Leave that up to them to fight out amongst themselves who loses the ill gotton gains.

I have a storecard pre 2005 so non FOS. But have now got hold of the underwriter via the policy from a SAR to the OC.

Now guess what the underwriter is a group fully owned by oh goody Lloyds.

So despite being no further on than where I was 6 months ago I now have an identifilable target.

So for me if I was you await a response to your just sent letter.

BTW D&D Homecare and Adminicle are all part of Swansure group who is owned by Assurant. Its all the same group you are after. Made to make people think its lots of companies.

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Thank you ken!

Yes I find it all very confusing, it does feel like they do all this to hide who is really responsible. I am prepared to spend time on this though, as I feel really strongly that we were well and truely screwed over with that insurance, especially as the policy is wortless now, having expired in 2009!!!!! I won't give this up without a fight!!

No I haven't done a SAR, but I think I may do so depending on any response that I get, and see if it turns anything up. Thanks.

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Your second question I just seen and unless someone corrects me i believe they do.

I have also seen regulated companies getting into bother for trading with unregulated ones and having to cough because they now come under the remit of FOS.

I.e you dealt with an unregulated company but the insurance is with a regulated one.

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Yep I see where you are up to now.

I think await the reply to your letter see what they have to say.

Then I suspect you will need that SAR. Unless you have a policy document still with your mortgage which names them.

My only caution on this is I believe MPPI has a low uphold rate for miss-selling.

But again I think for that amount of money its worth exploring for sure.

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

I still have the original policy document which is where I got all the company names from. On the back it says that D&D Homecare and Adminicale were members of GISC at the time. Just also noticed that Bankers Insurance Group is mentioned, don't know how I missed that. Says I should write to them if Adminicle don't resolve any complaints. Could they be the actual insurers?

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Bankers Insurance Group is part of Assurant Solutions again.

Oh what a tangled web they weave.

Least you know all these are one and the same. So no passing the buck. Defo need the underwriters methinks.

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

It's unbelieveable isn't it!!!!!

Yes thinking I may have to get that SAR to get to the bottom once and for all, will see what happens.

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Scope

The guidance applies to complaints about the sale of all types of PPI contract, whatever the basis on which it was sold and irrespective of whether the policy is still in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term (DISP App 3.1.1G).
For banks and insurers, the new regime covers complaints about PPI sales going back to 1st December 2001.
Brokers and intermediaries, however, have only been subject to FSA regulation since 14th January 2005. The FSA has confirmed that DISP applies to complaints against intermediaries about earlier sales if the intermediary was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter was covered by its rules.
Although the GISC code did not include many of the more detailed provisions now found in ICOBS, the FSA is satisfied that its general principles are sufficiently similar to those in the Handbook.
Sections in the final amended DISP text that have been given the status of "evidential provisions" will, however, only apply as guidance to complaints about pre-2005 sales (DISP App 3.10). Guidance is illustrative, but not binding, whereas compliance with an evidential provision will be taken as evidence that the firm has complied with FSA requirements.
For non-GISC sales (which would be outside the scope of DISP), complainants have to rely on common law principles, such as negligence or (where the broker was acting as agent of the insurer) the duty of utmost good faith or the general law on misrepresentation.
Limitation

Under DISP, a consumer must make a complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) within six years of the sale, or three years from when he knew (or ought reasonably to have known) he had cause for complaint, whichever is the longer.
Given all the publicity about PPI, many respondents to the consultations argued that the three-year time limit will have expired in most cases.
The FSA, however, takes the view that general media coverage, or even FSA comment, would not be enough to give rise to the sort of specific knowledge required by DISP.
Although some consumers may be deemed to have had sufficient awareness before January 2008 (so that their complaints would have been out of time by January 2011), the FSA says this is unlikely to apply generally. In any event, the final decision will rest with the FOS.



From the FSA handbook so seeing as you have a GISC connection its after 2001 and FSA dont give much credence to you should have complained within 3 years I would say then they are under FOS rules.

Hope that helps.

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Oh thanks ken for posting that, yes it definately helps and gives me some hope!!

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

I am a big believer in the value of a SAR - even though it costs a tenner.

I have had a PPI claim turned-down by NatWest credit cards on the basis that it was clearly shown on the application. I had already sent a SAR and the reply I received a few days ago tells me that they do NOT have a copy od the original application form.

So they refused a PPI claim on the strength of a document they now tell me they do not have.

TBH, that was about the only new info I got on this matter from the SAR but it alone was well worth the £10.

Good luck

[ken100464]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

I agree on the value of a SAR.

There are all sorts of gremlims that come to light. It has cost us a few pennys but without it we wouldnt know 2 banks have shortchanged us PPI. We wouldnt know we have a Mayhew and therefore an UE debt. We wouldnt be able to reconstruct an account for a charges reclaim which quite frankly makes the bank look vindictive.

We wouldnt know we had CPP on a Barclays account and best of all we wouldnt know our CCJ was being prepared for even though the bank had us on their severe hardship program.

So while we were talking about our difficulties in good faith the bank was preparing to litigate when we were at our lowest. The coms makes them look to be the scum they really are.

Hopefully this will come back to haunt them.

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Hi again!

Just a quick question, what is the best way of finding out if I had PPI on previous loans that I had? Checking back through my bank statements recently, I have had at least another 4 loans over the last 10 years that are all fully paid, but I wonder if I might have had PPI on them (since I was unaware I had PPI on the 2 loans that I was recently sent agreements for).

Should I just write to the lender and ask for a copy of my loan agreement in the first instance?

Thanks