Hamilton

[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

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

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 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

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

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,

[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

Wishing you luck and got my fingers crossed DI

Aww thanks honey, I am going to need it. Xxx

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Received an email from my Adjudicator, he is sending a copy of the letter by hardcopy post as well, basically its just if i want to send in further info because it goes to the ombudsman - it may take some time because of large volumes (tell me something I don't know) lol

The thing here is, this complaint is meant to be against the underwriter - Hamilton, and not Click/Endeavour as such, and I already know due to be being rejected in 2008 we could not have this investigated by the FOS because Click were not regulated when we taken out the loan in 2004, so don't know where the insurer/underwriter details disappeared too lol.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Further submission letter to the FOS.

Address



16 August 2011

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






Dear Mr M &/The Ombudsman dealing with this case.


Reference:
Click Finance/Endeavour Personal Finance (now HFC) Hamilton Insurance Company (Underwriter/Insurer).




I would like to make further points in relation of our case of the companies as above and in regards of the views/opinions given on this case.


The letter from you (Mr ******** *******) dated 02 June 2011, you stated that you were unable to investigate our complaint against Click Finance because of the Sale of the Payment Protection Insurance by Intermediaries such as Click has not been regulated since 14 January 2004.
Therefore our complaint against Click Finance is not within the Jurisdiction of your service, and you advised us you were then investigating the possibility of raising our concerns with the Insurance company who actually provided the cover under the policy (Underwriter), and you established that the underwriter of our policy was Hamilton Insurance Limited.


In order to conclude that Hamilton is responsible for the sale of the policy, you needed to be satisfied that Endeavour Personal Finance (EPF) was acting as an Agent when selling the policy.
You confirm that you’ve been unable to determine that Click was acting as an Agent of EPF when selling the policy, and as such you have been unable to conclude that there was a relationship between Click, Endeavour and Hamilton.


We had then found some details in some paperwork of HFC Bank (Endeavour was not HFC back then and only have been in recent years, although they were then under the same umbrella and had some dealings somewhere in the loan process)) at the time we taken out our loan in July 2004. We understood HFC was regulated back then unlike Endeavour Personal Finance or Click Finance, but they came into the process somewhere in the loan process.
We had forwarded you a copy of the paperwork of a HFC Customer Speaks form as we suspected they had involvement as well.


The application form was completed over the telephone by Click Finance and they sent this form to us to sign, No PPI added to the application form.
I had sent you a copy of this as “Concrete Evidence” as requested as evidence that Click Finance had completed the Application for a Secured loan.
Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) was however applied to EPF loan Agreement, this was later on in the loan process.
You will recall that I sent you a copy of 2 different signed loan agreements via EPF, one was dated before the completion on the Click loan application and the later agreement was in the final stages of the loan.
The first loan Agreement was the lender’s copy, and the later one signed and dated on 30 July 2004 was the customer copy, two different dates.


On researching, it seems that Endeavour Personal Finance (EPF) (Now HFC) used Loan sourcing “Introducers”, also classed as Brokers.
However, Loan mortgage packers/Introducers - more work is involved than that of a Standard loan credit broker.
Loan Introducers, they collect Employers References, Mortgage References and a Completion of a Building Society Questionnaire in short known as a (BSQ), this is for a second charge n the property, they also organise house valuations, credit searches.
No standard credit broker would undertake those activities as stated above.
Obviously commission will be paid by the lender on completion of the loan.


In regards of the above, we sent copies of all paperwork, such as the Employers details/Reference, The Mortgage statement/reference/charge, the House Valuation Report.
Click Finance paperwork, Endeavour Personal Finance paperwork, HFC details and a copy of the Endeavour (LOGO) EPF Payment Protection Policy details - which enclosed full details of the Underwriter/Insurer - Hamilton Insurance Limited.


The letter received from Mr Adjudicator dated 22 July 2011 also confirms it’s a complaint you cannot consider because you were unable to conclude that an Agency Relationship existed between Click Finance as the business that sold the policy and Endeavour Personal Finance that lent the funds.
Despite us sending in the copies of the paperwork for all of the above parties of who was who and what role they played.
The letter (a copy enclosed) from Endeavour Personal Finance, that was also forwarded to you by email states who is who and what part they came in to the process of the loan.


The letter dated 22 July 2011 also states that you have been in touch with HFC who used to be Endeavour Personal Finance, and they were unable to confirm or deny if Click were acting as a Mortgage Packager, and if Click were acting as a Mortgage Packager for EPF - who stated that even if Click were acting as a Mortgage Packager, this would not be evidence of an Agency Relationship.


In our view to this, no Standard Broker would collect the information as stated earlier in this letter, employers references, mortgage references and so on.
An agreement would have had to be signed up between broker and lender, this is known as an “Agency agreement” this would then form a relationship to from the lender to the broker (loan introducer). So this “is” called an “Agency Relationship” and is known to the English Law.


The paperwork provided to you is as stated of all parties involved in the process of the loan, and this case has been with the Financial Ombudsman Service since approximately 2009 or before.
It was suggested by the FOS to go the Underwriter/Insurer avenue, in our case Hamilton Insurance.
As Click Finance was not under jurisdiction when we taken out the loan and Click also dissolved in 2006.
The Insurers/Underwriters would also be involved, as this is also arranged by the lender (in our case).


I have also enclosed copies of examples of Loan Sourcing - Finance Transfer, please note this though is not a copies of Endeavour Personal Finance, but they “did” use loan introducers at the time we taken out the loan.


I am hoping still to get hold of a copy of a Copy of the Agency Agreement, and if I’m able to I will send to you as soon as possible before the timescale of 29 August 2011.






Yours sincerely

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

On going through the loan documents again, on the Credit Agreement which is Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, this is where the PPI was added (on the Endeavour personal Finance) credit agreement.

The broker application no PPI was added, to me this was then arranged by Endeavour later on into the loan.
So really in my opinion it would be that of Endeavour's liability arranging the loan with the Insurer Hamilton.

I understand going by read up's that you can take matters up with the lender if it was a regulated agreement, but in my case on the t&c's it states we used a credit broker on our free choice, and the lender will not take any liability.
(Now if our loan broker was a introducer and not that of a credit broker) to me the lender then will have liabilities, as a credit broker as stated earlier does not actually do the same roles or go so deeply such as mortgage/employers refs and so on.

What a mess this case is!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hamilton

Have you got the actual agreement for this? I suspect that it'll have flaws....... In particular, s.18 related

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Have you got the actual agreement for this? I suspect that it'll have flaws....... In particular, s.18 related

I will post mine up as well Niddy later if you don't mind, as it was the same year as Mags.
Cheers.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hamilton

see this for details - then check yours!

---> Multiple Agreements

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hamilton

I will post mine up as well Niddy later if you don't mind, as it was the same year as Mags.
Cheers.

No need to post it up, better to email me it if poss then you can leave it intact?

agreements@all-about-debt.co.uk