Hamilton

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Application form

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

I wrote to EPF a few months back to question them on their involvement, they got back to confirm, letter received below.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

To prove that the brokers were introducers and not standard credit brokers I had emailed the ones who valued our property, I enclosed a copy of the valuation report, and only those of packagers/introducers would be able to instuct these procedures on behalf of the lender, so a signed agreement of an agency relationship must have been done.

Anyway copy of my email below and below that - a copy of the response received

.................................................. .............................................

Good afternoon

I did email the business about a month or so ago, and it's in regards of a general query.

I require the details for the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) in regards of the business that arranged the valuation back on 21 July 2011.

I attach the copy of the Mortgage Valuation Report, and it seems it was instructed by Click Home loans Ltd, (Click Finance), so even though we have this confirmation as shown on the document enclosed, I just wondered if your company could also clarify on this. They need to know if they were standard brokers or introducers (mortgage packager for secured loans etc), it's just a basic query but we just require clarity on this, thank you.

Many thanks and apologies for bothering you, and look forward to hearing from you.


Kind Regards

***** *****

.................................................. ...............................................

And here's the response email...



Good afternoon,

Please accept my apologise for the delay in you receiving a response to your query.

I can confirm that 1 Click were the introducer.

Kind regards


C
Team Leader, Surveying Services
2 Boundary Court, Willow Farm Business Park, Castle Donington, Derby. DE74 2NN
DD
01332 813027

Fax
01252 379107

Email
clare.cheatle@cwsurveyors.co.uk

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Details of the business @ Companies House.

Click Finance Limited
Company Number: 04239176

Number of cases 1 (of 1 Cases)

Case Type Voluntary Creditors Liquidation
Wind up date - 11.04.2011
Appoint Practitioner - 11.04 2005
Due to be Dissolved - 23.03.2006

Voluntary Creditors Liquidation.......

Krasner Gerald Maurice
Begbies Traynor
Burley House
12 Clarendon Road
Leeds
Ls2 9NF

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

What so annoys me about when companies dissolve, such as the one above, is when they continue to run other businesses then start up another!
Anything to avoid any liabilities of complaints!

"Phoenix" is the word in my opinion!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Hamilton

Mags,

You'll notice I have split your posts - your new thread is here: ---> Endeavour Problems

[Paul.]

Re: Hamilton

Didnt work, ignore my post

[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.

[Paul.]

Re: Hamilton

john is a very good barrister

[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.

[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

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

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

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

[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?