Hamilton

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

In regards to post number 170 above, the email I sent to the CEO of Endeavour/HFC, I chased them again to today, also made the Adjudicator aware that we are still waiting for a response (something he should be chasing up really) and we finally received an email just now to say they are currently reviewing it and will be in touch for ASAP.
I had to let the Adjudicator know because he's given until the end of this week for us to forward any further info, he's known about this query sent to the above company for a few weeks now and to our knowledge its been left to us to chase, as its been within the FOS for some years now, you would think it would be part of their job as well.

Anyway, copy of email received by HFC below.




Dear Mr & Mrs

I am writing further to your recent e-mails.

I confirm that your query has been forwarded to my team to investigate.
Your query is currently under review and you will receive a response
shortly. Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in our response.

Kind Regards

E
Team Leader of Central Complaints | HFC UK
Camden House West, Birmingham, B1 3PY, UK
_____________________________________________

Email e@hfcbank.co.uk
_____________________________________________

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Been doing some searching around though. My broker or Lender were NOT members of GISC, but here I have copied from a extract from a website of this information.


If a lender of insurer is a member of GISC then compliance with the code will be an implied term, if not, it will be viewed as Industry Standard and this will be good evidence for a claim for breach of an implied term that PPI would be sold with reasonable care, skill or negligence.

Mispresentation is also relevant cause of action in respect of all Financial Mis-selling - primarily on the basis of partial non-disclosure. Negligence is the sense of negligent mis-statement relevant too. As far as negligence properly so-called, there is a debate at the moment whether there is a duty of care owed by lenders to customers, but negligence as a cause of action is currently being pleaded too.

If Financial mis selling can be proved damages may amount to the return of PPI instalments already paid, with interest at contract rate from the date they were paid until repayment.

If the PPI is sold by a broker, the lender bears no liability of the mis selling - unless the Credit Agreement is regulated. In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the ender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.

Because a broker owes fiduciary duty to a borrower (Arising from the relationship of the Principal & Agent), the broker should pay the commission to the borrower if it did not give informed consent to receive it.

If the broker is in liquidation - an action can be brought against the lender who paid the commission for procuring the broker's breach of fiduciary duty.
There is no fiduciary duty by the lender direct to the borrower.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

The Adjudicator confirmed all submissions a few days ago, and I made him aware that I am just awaiting more details from Endeavour/HFC, and still waiting for some feedback from them.
So due to this the Adjudicator offered until the 9th Sept, I have accepted that because it may give me time as well to sort further info as well.


The letter/email I sent to Endeavour/HFC was dated 20 August, and they got back to me on the 22 August to say they will pass on to the dept and they will respond to me, but up to now we're still not heard anything, so I also emailed them today to chase this up.

Address

Central Complaints Department
HFC Bank
PO Box 5055
Coventry
CV3 9EF
20 August 2011

Dear Sir/Madam

Account Number:

I had contacted Direct Group, who had contacted Aviva in relation of the Insurance of the Policy.
Aviva had passed on your address in regards of my query.

You confirmed just previously that Hamilton Insurance now known as Direct Group was the company that managed the Insurance Policy.

I understand that Click Finance were the Introducers of the policy, (we have collected written evidence for this). However, the Insurance Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) was not added on the Click Application Form, as shown on many copies of the applications received through SAR paperwork and one recently sent to me in the post by your company.

You will also note that on the application it states £21,000 for over a 240 month term, and on our lender Agreement the term is that of 300 months. The loan agreement also shows PPI added.
Please could you confirm with Click Finance being a Introducer on where the Insurance came into the loan process, and provide written evidence with your explanation to this? Thank you, I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely






Dear Mr & Mrs *****

Thank you for your email below, addressed to the Chief Executive. I have passed this on to the appropriate area within HSBC, who will respond to you as soon as possible.

Regards
S
Office of the Chief Executive, HSBC Bank plc


Anyway, that email from the CEO dept was dated 22 August 2011 and still not heard anything, but I feel I have stumped them somehow, its not as if they refused to end this case, because on the last letter they did say I could contact them anytime about this matter, and I've had no letter to say its closed.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Finally heard from the Adjudicator today, he confirms receipt of all submissions sent so far and he is aware that I am still waiting for some feedback from Endeavour/HFC, so he have said he will give us now until 9th September.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Don't know if this is any good really, but sent it today anyway, most of it though I have repeated myself from other info sent lol.

Address



26 August 2011

Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London
E14 9SR


For the attention ofThe Adjudicator ***** ****** & The Ombudsman,


Ref: *******/**/PP15
Click Finance/Endeavour Personal Finance/HFC/Hamilton Insurance Limited.

I wrote/emailed HFC (Endeavour Personal Finance) earlier in the week and received an email to confirm we will hear in due course. We realise this is coming to the deadline for the submissions and here we enclose further details in relation to our complaint that we hope will be taken into consideration.

Your email (Mr ****** ******/Adjudicator) previously stated we could have more time to research further on this - towards our submissions for when pass on to The Ombudsman.

Even though we have not received a response back from HFC/Endeavour as yet, we are hoping they will get back with the information required for our case. Basically it was just a further Inquiry on where the Payment Protection Insurance came into it and the changes of the terms from the Broker/Introducer Application form to that of the Lender (Endeavour loan agreement).

As there was no PPI ticked for on the application form, and the terms of the loan were that of 240 months.
It seems rather odd, the loan amount was correct of £21,000 on both the application form and the loan agreement, but then as stated above, no PPI on the application form and it was on the loan agreement and the extended loan term went to 300 months with PPI. We understand this have been questioned, but we’ve no explanation on this actual query from the business as such.

This was our very first secured loan, we lacked knowledge on how these worked, and assumed it all part of the loan when it was on the loan agreement, and that they must have changed the terms for it to tie in with the PPI for the amount of loan it was.

However, it seems your unable to establish a relationship agency - despite the Brokers/Introducers and the Lenders Endeavour now HFC paperwork sent to you.

This was suggested to pursue the Underwriter of the policy, due to the broker/introducer dissolved, yet was not regulated by the FSA, nor the lender will take any liabilities, despite this being a regulated agreement.
The lender states they will not take any liabilities as we chose to use a broker at our free will.
We are aware the broker was not a standard credit broker and was that of an Introducer, as confirmed to you recently, (a copy of the details from the Valuation company confirmed this) and a copy sent to you by email.
A Introducer is used by a lender to do all the required loan processing, collecting references from employers, mortgage lender and so on, so these are not classed as a standard credit broker and this should not apply to the terms and conditions as stated on the one of the lender Endeavour Personal Finance.

For the above to take place, an Agency Agreement “must” be signed between the lender and Introducer.

This does not happen with standard brokers, and for the introducers to have done the above work of the process of the loan, this is an agency relationship.

Also please note the Endeavour loan agreement was dated and signed by them (the lender copy) before the loan application made by our Introducer Click, you have copies of this paperwork, you will also have a copy of our signed agreement dated 30 July 2004.
The legal charge details were also signed on the same date, which we note by reading the loan agreement it states “The agreement was received by post more than 8 days after you received completed copies of the proposed Credit Agreement, the Legal Charge” etc.
This is incorrect, because the legal charge paperwork was also signed the same date on the 30 July 2004. There seems to be some errors in this matter.

We have been researching Insurance underwriting and have some details of this below:

Insurance underwriters evaluate the Risk and Exposures of Potential Clients. They decide how much the coverage the client should receive, how much should they pay for it, or whether to even accept the risk and Insure them.

Underwriting involves measuring Risk Exposure and determining the premium that needs to be charged to insure that risk.

The function of the underwriter is to acquire or to write - business that will protect the company’s book of business from risks that they feel will make a loss.
In simple terms, it is the process of issuing Insurance Policies.

The underwriters may either decline the risk or may provide a quotation in which the premiums have been loaded, or in which various exclusions have been stipulated, which will restrict the circumstances under which a claim would be paid.

In summary, the securities issuer gets cash upfront. The underwriter gets a nice profit from the mark-up.

As you are aware, you also established this, our Insurer/underwriter was Hamilton Insurance company Limited.

We believe we have provided you with all relevant paperwork in order for you to establish the agency relationships from the broker/introducer to the lender to the Underwriter/insurer.

The Payment Protection Insurance was added onto the loan agreement of Endeavour and it look like it was added further on in the loan process. None of the paperwork from a Subject Access Request from Endeavour proved where this change may have occurred in between, yet we did receive all other paperwork in relation of the loan that involved all parties, the broker/introducer, the lender and the underwriter/insurer.
Therefore as also confirmed on a letter from Endeavour/HFC (you also have a copy dated - 09 June 2011), it states “The loan funds and funds for Payment Protection Insurance were borrowed from ourselves”
Hamilton Insurance, now known as Direct Group, was the company that managed the Insurance policy”

They have also confirmed that the loan was introduced to Endeavour Personal Finance through the broker at the time, Click Finance, and as they didn’t have local branches their business came through brokers who customers initially sourced, and the brokers then matched the customer needs to finance companies.

There is obviously a relationship here and we will appreciate it if this can be submitted to the Ombudsman for review, thank you.

Yours sincerely

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

My submission deadline by next Monday, even though its bank holiday, but that was the date they gave.

Have sent further submissions over the last few weeks, not that it will make any difference because the "concrete evidence" have been with him all along, well almost!
Then its off to the ombudsman........but we all know what's likely to happen don't we, he or she will probably agree with the Adjudicator!

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Manufacturing dodgy PPI deals?

I thought that was strange one as well

[Susie]

Re: Hamilton

Company description

Life assurance At HFC Bank we believe in concentrating on what we know best - helping people organise their short and medium term credit needs so they can buy the things they want. Currently we provide this service to over 3 million people throughout the UK. We believe this makes us one of the UK's largest pure consumer finance business, and we have earned this position by truly understanding our customers' needs, and by working in partnership with other major companies.

Categories

Manufacturing

Manufacturing dodgy PPI deals?

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Below is the details of Hamilton.........well sort of.

If you click on the link of Hamilton then HFC comes up!

http://export.tv/r/257221_2/Hamilton...Ltd/index.html

Company description

Life assurance At HFC Bank we believe in concentrating on what we know best - helping people organise their short and medium term credit needs so they can buy the things they want. Currently we provide this service to over 3 million people throughout the UK. We believe this makes us one of the UK's largest pure consumer finance business, and we have earned this position by truly understanding our customers' needs, and by working in partnership with other major companies.

Address details

Company name: Hamilton Life Assurance Co. Ltd
Address: North Street, Winkfield,
SL4 4TD Windsor
Country: United Kingdom
Fixed-line telephone: 01344890014
WWW: http://www.hfcbank.co.uk

Categories

Manufacturing

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Hamilton had sold this insurance on to Norwich Union, then Aviva to Direct Group, they have taken on all liabilities as well, when I emailed Direct Group for details to help with my submissions for the FOS on this they always pass me back to HFC!

Nhttp://www.directgroup.co.uk/p/3/tags/claims/orwich Union Appoint Direct Group for Hamilton Insurance Contract

22/02/2008 09:00:00 by Marketing
Direct Group is pleased to announce its appointment as Administrator to handle the policy and claims administration on the Hamilton Insurance contract that was acquired in November 2007 by Norwich Union. The deal involves the transfer to Direct Group of over 300,000 policies. Direct Group will provide services including run-off on the range of insurance lines that Hamilton currently offer, including household, creditor and personal accident.

Derek Coles, Chief Executive Officer of Direct Group, commented “This is a prestigious contract for Direct Group which reinforces the successful and long term working relationship we continue to have with Norwich Union. Furthermore it demonstrates Direct Group’s ability to handle scale and capacity, illustrating to the market that we can implement and deliver business projects of this size and nature.”

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

This is old news, but explains where to take this if a pre 2005 case.

Can I complain about old PPI policy?

By This Is Money

Last updated at 12:55 PM on 26th February 2007


I was sold Payment Protection Insurance and want to complain but someone has told me that , as it was sold before January 2005, there is nothing I can do. Is this right? DL, Staines.
David Cresswell, spokesman for the Financial Ombudsman Service, said: The January 2005 date refers to the start of general insurance regulation by the Financial Services Authority – when the FSA began regulating many types of insurance for the first time, including payment protection insurance.
It is true that if you bought your policy before 31 January 2005, then the seller may not have been regulated by the FSA. It is only companies that are regulated more widely by the FSA – banks, building societies, insurance companies – that will have been covered by the FSA before then.
If the seller was an insurance broker or some other seller, such as a car dealership selling PPI alongside finance agreements, then the sale of PPI would not have been regulated before January 2005. But you may still complain to the FOS about PPI sold before then if the complaint is about a claim - where the policy does not pay out when you think it should do.
In this case it is the underwriters - the insurance company deciding your claim – that you are complaining about and these companies will have been regulated.
You may even be able to claim that a policy sold before 31 January 2005 had been mis-sold if you can show that the terms of the policy contract were unfair – again it would be the underlying insurer that you would complain against..
The best advice is to call the FOS helpline on 0845 080 1800 to find out if you have a case.


Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/e...#ixzz1VxsJlszp

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

The adjudicator still not confirmed he received all the further submissions, not that it will make any odds to him.
The 29th of this month is the deadline, then it will be in the queue for the Ombudsman, what do you reckon folks, another 3 years waiting? lol

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

john is a very good barrister

Really? Thanks for confirming this Paul.

The information John have given it does click in with my case, but I don't think the FOS will accept this, I'm not sure if I should bring this up or not.

[Paul.]

Re: Hamilton

john is a very good barrister

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

(NOT advertising lol, but this so much reminds me of mine, where the broker is no longer around)!
Could I not mention about this in my own words to the FOS do you think folks?
If so what would be the best way to word it?
(As this case is already with the FOS anyway, just trying to find ways round this), cheers.

Info as below found here
http://www.johnpughschambers.co.uk/O...Litigation.htm

Overview of PPI Litigation

Mis-selling PPI may involve tricking a consumer into purchasing single premium PPI when they did not want it or against their will, pressurising consumers into taking PPI, or selling PPI which is unsuitable for the Insured’s demands and needs or which is unnecessarily expensive (which is another aspect of suitability).

After the 14th January 2005 sales of insurance were regulated by the FSA and the Rules it made under the Financial Markets and Services Act 2000. The relevant rules from 14.01.05 until 06.01.08 were the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB). After 06.01.08 the Rules were revised and the Insurance: Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) was published. To access these rules visit the FSA web site. Links to ICOB and ICOBS appear in the Links Section of this website.

Many banks and financial institutions have been fined by the FSA for breach of ICOB. A link to the records of fines appears in the links page. They are worth reading to understand how the banks and finance companies have been mis-selling PPI and why the FSA intervened.

There are three layers of regulation within the FMSA, Principle, Rule and Guidance. Private individuals may not sue for breach of principles (Only the FSA can do that). By section 150 of the FMSA an action for damages can be brought for breach of a Rule. There is no remedy for breach of Guidance. In ICOB the rules are followed by a capital ‘R’, e.g. 4.2.1R

Before 14th January 2005 the industry was self regulated. Most insurers belonged to the General Insurance Services Council (“GISC”). Its Private Code regulated private sales. The content of GISC more or less mirrors the FSA regulations in less detail (but possibly with greater clarity).

If a lender or insurer is a member of GISC then compliance with the Code will be an implied term. If not, it will be viewed as industry standard, and will be good evidence for a claim for breach of an implied term that PPI would be sold with reasonable care and skill or negligence. This is not yet accepted by the Banks and is yet to be tested in actual litigation although what is stated represents the current view of the FOS.

Misrepresentation is also a relevant cause of action in respect of all financial mis-selling – primarily on the basis of partial non disclosure. Negligence in the sense of negligent mis-statement is plainly relevant too. As to negligence properly so called, there is a debate at the moment whether there is a duty of care owed by lenders to customers but negligence as a cause of action is currently being pleaded also. The forthcoming test cases before HH Judge Waksman this summer should provide some answers.

If financial mis-selling can be proved damages may amount to the return of PPI instalments already paid with interest at contract rate from the date they were paid until the date of repayment. There is much debate as to whether this should be paid or may be set off against arrears.

Brokers

If the PPI is sold by a broker the lender bears no liability for the mis-selling unless the credit agreement is regulated. In the case of a regulated agreement Section 56 of the Consumer Credit Act will often make the lender liable for antecedent negotiations by the broker.

Always check the Broker is solvent – a lot have liquidated to avoid these claims.

A spin off of PPI litigation may arise where the lender has paid the broker a commission which has not been declared either as to existence (secret commission) or as to amount (undisclosed commission). Because a broker owes a fiduciary duty to a borrower (arising from the relationship of principal and agent) the broker should pay the commission to the borrower if the borrow did not give informed consent to the broker to receive it.
If the broker is in liquidation an action may be brought against the lender who paid the commission for procuring the broker’s breach of fiduciary duty. There is no fiduciary duty owed by the lender direct to the borrower.

Enforceability of Regulated Agreements

Since 14th April 2000 the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980 included Regulation 4 (c) which provided that in any case where PPI is made a condition of the loan agreement it will be deemed to be part of the cost of credit and not the amount of credit (and therefore will become a component of the APR). (Pre 14th April 2000 there was much case law on Regulation 14 (b) which will apply to PPI sales but it is complex and needs specialist consideration)

The importance of this regulation is that if the single premium PPI is made a condition of the loan and is included in the agreement as credit as opposed to cost of credit, that breaches the prescribed term as to statement of amount of credit and can make pre 6th April 2007 agreements irredeemably unenforceable.

The same thing does not happen with unregulated agreements.
No agreement which was made after 06/04/2007 can now be made irredeemably unenforceable by breach of a prescribed term - although the agreement will still be improperly executed and so may be enforced only by order of the court.

There is current case law as to what is and is not ‘enforcement’ for such purposes. Reporting to credit reference agencies is not enforcement, nor is issuing a statutory demand, nor, apparently (on current authorities) is the commencement of proceedings.

After the 6th April 2008 the financial limit for regulation of consumer credit agreements was lifted so that all credit agreements (unless made wholly or predominantly for business purposes and not excluded (e.g. first mortgages or debtor-creditor-supplier agreements with less than 4 instalments)) are regulated. In the PPI context regulation remains important in respect of the application of section 56 CCA where brokers are involved.

Unfair Relationships

These are wide ranging. They cover all credit agreements (note- they cover regulated and unregulated agreements). They give a wide discretion to the Court to consider the terms of the agreements, the way they were entered into and the conduct of the Creditor after the agreement and to adjust the financial obligations under the agreements to make them fair. This may or may not add to the remedies available under FMSA or at common law for damages for mis-selling. The court may consider related agreements and the conduct of associated parties.
For a check list of matters to consider with a client in a PPI claim please followthis link.