Hamilton

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Manufacturing dodgy PPI deals?

I thought that was strange one as well

[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

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

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

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

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

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

Our Adjudicator have given a further week again, happy about that, but its a shame he's not the one chasing the business up, maybe they would have dealt with it by now.

This is because we are waiting for a letter from HFC/Endeavour, as they confirmed yesterday a letter will be in the post for ASAP and they will email me to let me know when its on its way.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

With them reviewing this, I really don't know what excuse they will find this time of where the PPI came into it, even the lender knows its not on the broker application form, seems strange that its added on the lender loan agreement and with different loan terms to that of the application form!

They will find some excuse, however they've had 20 days now and confirmed yesterday they were looking into this, they could have refused I suppose, because they know its with the FOS.

[Mags76]

Re: Hamilton

Di

I have no idea if this link will help you but it states on it about Hamilton and endeavour being linked (i think) and the details of who now owns Hamilton Insurance

http://hamiltontransfer.com/library/...cument.DOC.pdf

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Thank you for this Mags, this is very helpful.

However, today I received a letter from EPF who are finally admitting liability since I wrote to them in August, seems I got them, they have upheld but there is nothing about any redress, just an apology, so its off to the adjudicator with this feedback again now lol.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

REF:

Mr & Mrs



7 Sept 2011

Account *********

I am writing to your email dated 20 August 2011, received by the Chief Executive Officer's office at HSBC Bank, informing us of your complaint. HSBC have forwarded your email to Endeavour Personal Finance (EPF), in order to allow us to respond accordingly.
This matter has now been referred to me as member of the Central Complaints Department for investigation. Please accept my apologies that you have had cause to contact us and for the delay in my response.

Having completed my enquiries into the issues you have raised and having given careful consideration to all the information available, I have now made a decision to uphold your complaint. I have summarised below the basis on which I have made my decision.

I am aware your complaint is that you are confused as to which company sold the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) on the above account. EPF have previously stated that the PPI on your account was sold by Click Finance Ltd, who were the brokers for this loan. You have been provided with a copy of the original application form completed by Click Finance Ltd, however, this does not indicate that you wished tp purchase PPI. Furthermore, the Legal Agreement for your loan was for a greater amount than was quoted on your original application, and had a longer term. In addition, the additional amount borrowed appears to have been in payment for PPI, which the Legal Agreement indicates was taken out on the loan.
you have therefore requested written confirmation of which company sold the PPI, and that we provide evidence of this in our response.

The above amount was an EPF Secured loan, secured against your property, which was opened 30 July 2004, the amount of £21,000. In addition, you opted to take out optional PPI, which was paid for by a single premium of £2,835.00 incorporated into the loan. Therefore the starting balance of the loan was £23,835.00. This was originally to be repaid by 300 monthly instalments of £208.51, with an interest rate of 9.9% Annual Percentage (APR). The interest rate of your account was variable, and was based upon the Finance House Base Rate (FHBR).

The details of the loan were clearly specified on the Legal Agreement which you had signed.
May I respectfully advise that is remains the customer's responsibility to read through the Terms & Conditiond of their Legal Agreement before signing it. By signing the Legal Agreement you confirmed your understanding and acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of the loan.

I have reviewed a copy of your original application form completed by Click Financial Ltd, and can confirm that you originally requested for a sum of £21,000 over a term of 240 months. In addition, I am in agreement that the original application form did not indicate that you wished to take out optional PPI. Finally, I am also aware that you had a telephone conversation with a member of our customer services department on 26 July 2004, prior to the signing of the Legal Agreement. The final details of the loan would have been agreed during this telephone conversation, following which the legal agreement would have been sent to you to read, sign and return.

As the details of the loan specified on the legal agreement differ slightly to the original application, it is clear that EPF changed some of the details of the loan following receipt of the application from Click Financial ltd. In addition, normally would be paid to the broker for arranging the optional PPI on an account. I can confirm on this that no commission was paid to Click Finance ltd in relation to PPI, which would indicate that the PPI was sold by EPF and not by Click Financial ltd.

In view of the above, I can confirm that the optional PPI on your account was sold by EPF.
Regrettably, I am unable to find any record of any record of the correspondence or conversation when it was agreed that the optional PPI would be added to your account. Consequently, I am unable to provide you with written evidence or proof that PPI was sold by EPF. Please note, however, this letter acts as written confirmation that we accept the optional PPI on your account was sold by us.

Please accept my sincere apologies that EPF incorrectly stated the PPI on your account was sold by Click Finance LTD, and for any inconvenience or concern caused by this matter, as this certainly was not our intention. EPF strives to provide the highest level of customer service and it is evident, on this occasion, we have failed to meet your expectations.

In summary, the details of the loan specified on the Legal Agreement differ slightly to the original application form completed with Click Financial Ltd. In addition no commission was paid to Click Financial Ltd for arranging your optional PPI on your account. In view of this, I can confirm the optional PPI on your account was sold by EPF. Therefore, we were previously incorrect in stating that PPI on your account was sold by Click Finance Ltd.

Should you have any further enquiries, please do not hesitate to contact our Customer services Department between the hours of 9-5 Monday to Friday.

I would like to thank you for bringing this matter to my attention. Whilst I appreciate that this may not be the response that you were hoping to receive, I trust I have clariffied our position in this matter.
This brings to an end the steps available to you through our internal complaints procedure as this letter constitutes our final response.

I am obliged to inform you that should you remain dissatisfied, you have the right to refer this matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service, South Quay Plaza, 183 Marsh Wall, London, E14 9SR, telephone 0845 080 1800.
Website:
I enclose a brochure entitled, "your complaint and the Ombudsman" which explains their role. If you wish to refer this matter to the FOS, you should do within 6 months of the date of this letter.

Yours sincerely

Complaints Investigator.
Central Complaints Dept.

[MattyA]

Re: Hamilton

What does this mean di? - Is it a result or a back heel?

Matty

[di30]

Re: Hamilton

Hi Matty

I am not sure to be honest, but going to forward it on to the Adjudicator, after all this time EPF have admitted its them that sold the ppi, which is what the FOS need to know, so even though they upheld it, they probably just upheld it for getting it wrong but nothing about the mis selling of the ppi.

[garlok]

Re: Hamilton

Hi Di,

As an "outsider" reads a bit like a Barclays response to everything. Contradictory, misleading and "get-out" clause for everything.

regards
Garlok