Mortgage PPI from 2004

[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

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

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

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

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.

[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.

[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

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

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??)

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

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

[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

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

Thanks again

[di30]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Thank you Vinty, your a star

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Thanks vint!

So won't go down that road then, I'll stick with this mortgage claim for now and see how I get on.

Thanks everyone for all your advice, you have no idea how grateful I am!!

[vint1954]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

This is from the internet. It seems to confirm that PPI claims that had the Right of Action before bankruptcy, belong to the OR:

" So to summarise the ROA is an Asset and that asset is created when you signed the credit agreement. Being that in these instances the PPI claims we are talking about are all on credit agreements signed before the bankruptcy then these PPI claims are all assets and they all vest with the trustee of your bankruptcy.
This means that not only do you not have the right to receive the monies from any claim but that you also do not have the right to make the claim, That right passed to the trustee and so it is the trustees right whether to take it forward or not, the claim now belongs to them.

As far as I last heard the Insolvency service is trialling using a solicitors firm to take batches of these claims forward en masse to the banks and therefore if you have already made the claim and pocketed the cash there is a good chance that the IS will at some point try and cash in the claim and therefore realise that you already have. At that point they will have the option of recovering it from you. "

It also appears banks are wise to this and make the cheques out to the OR