Hamilton

[IF]

Re: Hamilton

I have emailed the Adjudicator, to let him know that my further submissions will be with them tomorrow afternoon by email, this is the final shot now, and if this does not resolve I am unable to take this matter to court because its been with the FOS since 2009, so please wish me luck folks. Cheers.

Another 2/3 years on this one now before I hear lol.

Wishing you luck and got my fingers crossed DI

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

My further submissions - now sent to the Adjudicator today, in order for it to be forwarded on to the ombudsman for a full review, thanks to TBD over the road as well.

Dear Mr. Adjudicator,

Further to our previous submission and your subsequent response, we wish to respond as follows to the points raised by yourself in your letter dated 22nd July, 2011.

Based on your points, it would appear that you have either, not been able to establish a link between Endeavour Personal Finance (EPF) and Click Finance, or; believe that no link existed between the parties giving cause to a Principal & Agent relationship. It is unfortunate that you have not made clear which of the above apply to our complaint, however, we strongly disagree with both statements, as clearly a relationship did exist between the parties and it was not a relationship which was purely a lender and independent broker relationship as suggested by EPF based on the evidence that we have previously supplied to you.

Firstly, we have noted in your opinion that HFC, who are now responsible for EPF, have not disclosed to you whether Click Finance was acting as a packager when the loan was being underwritten and processed. We are at a loss why this question has not been vigorously pursued by the FOS as it is an incredibly relevant question, and we have no doubt in our minds that once answered, it would demonstrate beyond any doubt what the relationship existed between both parties.

You have stated in your previous correspondence that even if Click was acting as a packager, they would only be collecting the relevant documentation to pass onto EPF and that they would still be acting as an independent broker. With the utmost respect this assumption is incorrect.

It would be true to state that an independent broker would be responsible for collecting some information to support as loan application such as bank statements, payslips, P60 etc, however, it would be the lenders role to instruct valuations, request written employers references and written evidence of mortgage payments being made.

A lender would insist on this, as it would, firstly, safeguard them against fraud, and secondly, if the loan was securitized and sold to a third party, the same third party could audit the loans granted as part of their due diligence process in order to ascertain that the loan book they were purchasing was a reasonable investment.

However, EPF requested none of the above references – and the reason they did not do so, is that they appointed EPF as their agent in order to carry this out on their behalf. We feel it is a very short sighted view by the FOS to assume otherwise. To put it bluntly, a lender, such as EPF with it’s strict lending requirements, would not accept any old reference requested by any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Either they would do it themselves or they would ask one of their agents to carry out the work on it’s behalf.

A lender would not accept any valuer’s valuation on the property being used as security for their loans – they would have a panel of surveying firms, which would be acceptable to them. Nor would they allow anyone to write for an employers reference on behalf of an applicant as it would be susceptible to fraud being committed.

EPF allowed Click Finance to carry out this work on their behalf as a contractual relationship existed between both firms. Furthermore, before granting a packaging agency to a firm such as Click, EPF would have carried out due diligence on Click Finance to ensure that it was fit and competent to carry out references on it’s behalf. For the avoidance of any doubt, Click were handling very sensitive documentation and information for EPF – for HFC to state to you that Click were acting purely as an independent broker, we feel, is very misleading.

We have attempted to locate a copy of the Packaging Agreement that existed between EPF and Click. Unfortunately, EPF are no longer lending and have therefore disbanded their network of packagers, which has made it difficult to locate a copy that Click would have originally signed, however, our inquiries are continuing. We also feel that it would be beneficial to our case, and to ensure that you have a balanced view in order to make an opinion, that the FOS should ask HFC to disclose a copy of the agreement to yourselves.

We look forward to receiving your response in due course,

Yours truly,

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

I have emailed the Adjudicator, to let him know that my further submissions will be with them tomorrow afternoon by email, this is the final shot now, and if this does not resolve I am unable to take this matter to court because its been with the FOS since 2009, so please wish me luck folks. Cheers.

Another 2/3 years on this one now before I hear lol.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

I have heard from TBD from over the road, who is hoping to send me a copy of the packaging agreement all in time for Friday, this is the deadline for me to send further submissions in order for my case to be passed on to the Ombudsman.

This should be good evidence to my case anyway, so fingers crossed.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Was meant to post up my copy of the email send to the PP15 team left by my Adjudicator, done this when he was on leave and also emailed him a copy, bet he didn't think much of it though lol.



Dear Mr Adjudicator

Here I enclose a below a copy of our email sent to the Team PP15 team, as I understand you needed to know what we wanted to do in regards of having this reviewed by the Ombudsman by 5 August 2011, many thanks for your time in this matter.

Kind Regards

Mr & Mrs .

From:
To: teamPP15@financial-ombudsman.org.uk
Sent: 24/07/2011 13:56:19 GMT Daylight Time
Subj: CC /Click Finance/Hamilton Ref:


To the PP15 Team

The contact details were left on our Adjudicator - Mr ******* ******* who is out of office until 01 August 2011.

Complaint Ref: /MK/PP15

Click Financial/Hamilton

We received Mr Adjudicator's view dated 22 July 2011, but we do not agree, and wish for this to be forwarded to the Ombudsman.
We were given until the 5 August 2011 to decide and understand we are to let you know for as soon as possible.

We feel this have been overlooked, despite passing on all written/concrete evidence of all parties concerned.
The Payment Protection Policy from the lender Endeavour Personal Finance (all this paperwork was passed on to Mr Adjudicator) encloses details of the Underwriter/Insurer of Hamilton, this is an avenue we were suggested to take by the FOS as the broker/mortgage packager Click Finance dissolved in 2006.

However, as we felt we provided the evidence that was requested for in regards of the Broker/packager, who Endeavour Personal Finance (EPF) obviously would have paid commission for doing this work for them, such as Employers References, Mortgage References, House Valuations and so on, this is not what a standard broker would do, we have been researching this matter.

Despite that, the Payment Protection Policy details (if you want the full booklet of this sent please let us know) has the Logo of Endeavour Personal Finance and details of the Underwriter/Insurer within, this is plain obvious of the connections.

If this wasn't concrete Evidence of the broker Application form and the paperwork that was also forwarded of the brokers work/references etc, this is in Black and White and proves all relationships of all parties involved in the sale of the Loan.
This we understand have been a complex issue, and confusing, but we were informed of going the Underwriter direction because the broker dissolved and provided the details of all involved and am now awaiting some details since receiving the letter from our Adjudicator in regards of the relationships.

It seems that as stated on Mr Adjudicator's letter that Endeavour now HFC was unable to confirm or deny if Click was acting as a mortgage packager for Endeavour, and also states that even if Click was acting as a mortgage packager this would not be evidence of an agency relationship.
We have provided written evidence and whether or not the evidence from HFC/Endeavour was just verbal or not we have provided the written paperwork which was requested for - evidence that Click Finance was the broker of the loan.
We are aware this is supposed to be impartial and 2 sides are taken into account. taking into account of written information provided from both parties).

As we have until the 5 August 2011, we are now aiming (since receiving Mr Adjudicator's letter dated 22 June 2011) to get hold of information hopefully in written evidence) of the Mortgage packaging details if we're able to.
And also make contact with the insurers direct who were taken over with liabilities by Aviva (Norwich Union) also Direct Group who have left a telephone number for us to call them so they can try giving us any information they may hold).

I have copies of all paperwork provided to Mr Adjudicator if required but am aware he will pass on the details to the Ombudsman, but if you require any of them again, we will be happy to re-send them.

Many thanks and please is it possible for you to confirm receipt on our email? Thank you.

Kind Regards

Mr & Mrs

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

I received a message from The_Big-Dog today, and he is almost there with my submissions to the FOS, and will be in touch with me early next week, he is hoping to get hold of the Packaging Agreement in regards of Endeavour, he has hold of one but not to do with Endeavour, but another company, so that will be used if he is unable to get hold of the EPF one, as its the same thing.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

The SAR request has been safely delivered, checked on Track and Trace (to the FOS).

And a response back on behalf of our Adjudicator who is away until next week.


Dear Mr and Mrs
,
I confirm safe receipt of your e-mail, dated 24 July 2011. I note that, in addition to your e-mail, you intend to provide further submissions before your file is passed to an ombudsman for a final decision. I understand that Mr ****** asked for your final submissions to arrive by 5 August 2011. If you will be unable to provide your final submissions by this date, and require more time, please contact Mr ****** after he returns to the office on 1 August 2011.

Yours sincerely

K
Adjudicator
Tel: 020 7964
Fax: 020

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

LMAO

[caspar]

Re: Hamilton

Have you ever dealt with TEAM PENIS CC - bunch of little squirts!

[CleverClogs (RIP)]

Re: Hamilton

However, with the Adjudicator not being in office until the 1 August 2011, we have copied this to the TEAM PPI15,

I read that as "the TEAM PENIS".

Perhaps it's time for another eye test?

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Email sent to the Adjudicator - we told him we do not agree with his view and believe it's been overlooked considering we did post the documents he previously requested for in order to connect the relationship (it's there in black and white).
And that we now want this reviewed in full by the Ombudsman.

However, with the Adjudicator not being in office until the 1 August 2011, we have copied this to the TEAM PPI15, the details he left in case we need to contact them in urgency during his absence.

This may not be urgent to him, but by the time he arrives back from his leave there will only be 4 days left to his deadline date 5th August 2011.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Cheers again Angry Cat.

Yes will get back to this, have also now set up a SAR to go to the FOS, they should receive this on Monday. Will be interesting to see what comes back from these companies, even though I am aware that some data will not be included.
I did SAR Endeavour in 2007, and was also thinking about doing another SAR with them too, as there is bound to be more info now.

I have provided all the paperwork the adjudicator previously asked for in regards of his June letter, which connects all parties, but it doesn't seem to be enough.
OTR there is as you will be aware a very long thread on this with all details lol.

Will continue to work on this though, thank you x

[Angry Cat]

Re: Hamilton

di30, I have not read though all of your thread, sorry.
But I would suggest that you go back to basics and dig up as much information that you can obtain about the firms involved.
The FOS will not do this for you.

The FOS will only look at the facts that you have presented to them and how you have presented your complaint to them or, what they are informed by the firms (if they can locate the firms) involved.

Do your homework!

The rip-off/ mis-sold PPI saga, will long continue...

[Angry Cat]

Re: Hamilton

Keep digging di!

Although, once an FOS adjudicator has made his/her decision (for whatever reason) it will be extremely hard to alter the (probable biased) view.

Never been impressed with the FOS...!

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Thank you Angry Cat.

Click had that many businesses going with more or less as you know with similar name, kept dissolving and starting up.
It seems that even though HFC and Endeavour have been a company under the HSBC bank, that HFC taken over Endeavour completely back a few years ago.

Confusing with all these Clicks though lol.