Endeavour

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

It's all beyond frustrating isn't it!! I swear these companies create such a web of different names to make people like us lose the will to live and eventually give up because we just can't be bothered trying to get to the bottom of it anymore!




I'm still waiting for word for mine, last I heard it was still waiting for an adjudicator. I sometimes have a nosy on the Ombudsman website at completed cases, and noticed a case that was upheld in October last year that seems similar to mine as it involves Assurant Intermediary (or Assurant General Insurance or Assurant Solutions!!! all of these names have been used by them in correspondence to me!!) Anyway, the case is from 2004 same as mine, and refers to a 'seller' but doesn't name them and states that Assurant, as the underwriter, accepted responsibility for the sale and therefore the complaint. That is the opposite to what Assurant told me. Obviously there will be differences in my case, but it makes me feel slightly less pessimistic than I have been lately!

Anyway, good luck going forward with this.

Thanks, in my case it seems that Purple Loans could say whatever they wanted and because they hadn't voluntarily signed up to any regulating bodies cannot be held responsible for their actions. The FOS are therefore toothless in such instances

Here's their latest reply to my email last night

" Although Aviva took over Hamilton Insurance, they did not take on the liabilities of Hamilton policies sold alongside Endeavour Personal Finance Loans. This remained the responsibility of HFC Bank as the insurer was part of HFC Bank at the time of sale.

As mentioned in my view I looked at whether we could consider this complaint against HFC Bank however as the loan and PPI policy was arranged through a broker (Purple Loans) we have not been able to find any evidence from the surviving point of sale documents which reasonable shows evidence of an agency relationship between Purple Loans, Endeavour Personal Finance and the insurer.

I hope this has provided some clarification as to why we cannot consider this complaint against Aviva. "

Surely the relationship is that Purple Loans were selling the product of both Endeavour AND the insurer or do they allow just anyone to sell their products ? I wonder what they mean by agency relationship, they must be an agent to sell their tacky products I would have thought ????

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Endeavour

This is the thing that annoys me the most, passing the buck! Nothing to do with us! It was our product, and we got paid for it, it was some wee guy that sold it, but he wasn't selling on our behalf and we didn't ask him to sell it for us blah blah blah!!!

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

Exactly

[di30]

Re: Endeavour

Hiya and thanks for your PM

I am so sorry to read this and with the outcome of the FOS as well.

After a very long time (years) of our cases being with the FOS they do tend to come back with the same answer to everyone!!!

How frustrating and very annoying,

Firstly EPF MUST have details of your underwriter and yet the fob offs keep coming in!

Now please remind me to save strolling (especially as my computer is slow), did you also try to raise this up with Hamilton/Aviva before it went to the FOS?

Due to being fobbed off with the same response as you by the FOS, I undertaken matters up myself with the underwriters myself from there, and I thought by giving it a go myself to save going to the FOS because I guessed they would come back after a very long time to say that that underwriter not responsible, all that rubbish.

I can't remember or not if I gave you a copy of my letter that I sent to my underwriter to give you an idea on what to write and word the complaint to them?

Maybe worth yourself doing this yourself just to see what they come back with (in case the FOS messed up) just a thought and if you feel up to it....

Let me know, thanks x

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

Hiya and thanks for your PM

I am so sorry to read this and with the outcome of the FOS as well.

After a very long time (years) of our cases being with the FOS they do tend to come back with the same answer to everyone!!!

How frustrating and very annoying,

Firstly EPF MUST have details of your underwriter and yet the fob offs keep coming in!

Now please remind me to save strolling (especially as my computer is slow), did you also try to raise this up with Hamilton/Aviva before it went to the FOS?

Due to being fobbed off with the same response as you by the FOS, I undertaken matters up myself with the underwriters myself from there, and I thought by giving it a go myself to save going to the FOS because I guessed they would come back after a very long time to say that that underwriter not responsible, all that rubbish.

I can't remember or not if I gave you a copy of my letter that I sent to my underwriter to give you an idea on what to write and word the complaint to them?

Maybe worth yourself doing this yourself just to see what they come back with (in case the FOS messed up) just a thought and if you feel up to it....

Let me know, thanks x

Hi Di,

I've been trying for so long I'm not giving up yet.

I've told the FOS the insurer and they and EPF are linked (in same group of companies) and I've emailed the FOS evidence of that last night.

The main issue seems to be linking Purple Loans in with them as EPF say "nothing to do with us Guv, we didn't sell you the product" therefore as Purple weren't signed up to any schemes the FOS won't do anything. I've said that surely EPF must somehow vet/approve who sells their product ?

The insurer route (BFC) through aquisitions ended up at Aviva via Hamilton, but the FOS say that Aviva didn't buy the liabilities of Hamilton. Does that mean when a company buys out another no-one is responsible for previous policies ?

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

FOS have come back again and turned me down as although the insurer and EPF are linked there is NO link to the broker Purple who sold the loan/PPI

On getting the money back from the insurer route, this is what the FOS have to say

"Although Aviva took over Hamilton Insurance, they did not take on the liabilities of Hamilton (they took over BFC )policies sold alongside Endeavour Personal Finance Loans. This remained the responsibility of HFC Bank as the insurer was part of HFC Bank at the time of sale.

As mentioned in my view I looked at whether we could consider this complaint against HFC Bank however as the loan and PPI policy was arranged through a broker (Purple Loans) we have not been able to find any evidence from the surviving point of sale documents which reasonable shows evidence of an agency relationship between Purple Loans, Endeavour Personal Finance and the insurer."


Or in other words Purple Loans could run around doing & saying whatever they wanted and there's nothing anyone can do about it

Unless someone on here has some evidence of an agent link between Purple and Endeavour I think I've had it and am going to have to give up :-(

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

This is the email I received today after sending evidence of the link between Endeavour and BFC the original insurer, plus paperwork from Purple stating they have close ties with many providers

"I have reviewed the evidence you have given me. However, I am not persuaded it is enough to prove that an agency relationship existed.

The Purples Loans document you referred to which says they have a list of lenders only goes to show that there would not have been an agency relationship. Based on your requirements at the time Purple Loans would have chosen a lender that best suited your needs, in this case they chose EPF as the lender. Therefore they would have been acting on your behalf.

Although Purple Loans may have been paid a commission by EPF it doesn’t equate to an agency relationship. I don’t doubt that a relationship existed between EPF and Purple Loans, however it wasn’t an agency relationship.

Furthermore, the terms and conditions of your credit agreement (copy enclosed) clause 11 states: “ It is accepted that where you used a credit broker you did so of your own free choice. You acknowledge that you have not paid any fees to a credit broker, sub broker or any other person in respect of any introduction. Any credit broker involved with the transaction shall be regarded as your agent and we are not responsible for his actions or advice” By signing the credit agreement you agreed to these terms and conditions.

Even if there was an agency relationship between BFC Insurance and EPF, the chain of agency breaks at Purple Loans as they were not acting as an agent for EPF.

I hope this clarifies why we are unable to consider your complaint."



No excuse I know but who reads the small print, especially when the man selling the loan is telling you to take the PPI to get the loan

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Endeavour

This is the email I received today after sending evidence of the link between Endeavour and BFC the original insurer, plus paperwork from Purple stating they have close ties with many providers

"I have reviewed the evidence you have given me. However, I am not persuaded it is enough to prove that an agency relationship existed.

The Purples Loans document you referred to which says they have a list of lenders only goes to show that there would not have been an agency relationship. Based on your requirements at the time Purple Loans would have chosen a lender that best suited your needs, in this case they chose EPF as the lender. Therefore they would have been acting on your behalf.

Although Purple Loans may have been paid a commission by EPF it doesn’t equate to an agency relationship. I don’t doubt that a relationship existed between EPF and Purple Loans, however it wasn’t an agency relationship.

Furthermore, the terms and conditions of your credit agreement (copy enclosed) clause 11 states: “ It is accepted that where you used a credit broker you did so of your own free choice. You acknowledge that you have not paid any fees to a credit broker, sub broker or any other person in respect of any introduction. Any credit broker involved with the transaction shall be regarded as your agent and we are not responsible for his actions or advice” By signing the credit agreement you agreed to these terms and conditions.

Even if there was an agency relationship between BFC Insurance and EPF, the chain of agency breaks at Purple Loans as they were not acting as an agent for EPF.

I hope this clarifies why we are unable to consider your complaint."



No excuse I know but who reads the small print, especially when the man selling the loan is telling you to take the PPI to get the loan

I don't know what to say. It's just ridiculous what they get away with

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

I don't know what to say. It's just ridiculous what they get away with

I know and unless someone on here has any proof that Purple were agents of Endeavour before Friday, the FOS are closing the file.

I thought the insurance route would have some luck as I know Di has had success but the FOS say that Aviva didn't buy the liabilities when they purchased the company

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

Well the deadline for the FOS was today so unless anyone knows better then Purple Loans/Endeavour/BFC (Hamilton/Aviva) have got away with it. Nice work if you can get it

8 years of letters, stress and effort for nothing

[IF]

Re: Endeavour

I'm so sorry LF, sending big hugs

Best wishes
IF

[lookingforward]

Re: Endeavour

Thanks, can't do anything but drop it now, have tried going direct to GE, Purple, Endeavour and Aviva so FOS was last chance.

One thing I haven't tried is going to my MP which was previously suggested, but in this day and age why would a letter from an MP make any of this mob pay out, so don't think it's worth it somehow.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Endeavour

Sorry I've missed this thread. I thought HFC (HSBC) purchased Endeavour in what, 98?

[nanna58]

Re: Endeavour

So sorry LF hugs xx

[Bill-K]

Re: Endeavour

Hi to LF & SOM. I have been asked if I can suggest anything here, but my PPI experience is mostly with the figures. I haven't looked through this entire thread, but as I understand it, LF & MOM have similar claims and timelines - and LF submitted a claim to the FOS about 18 months ago. Finally, in January, the FOS rejected the claim for a number of reasons which all appear to show that either:
The FOS has spent the last 18 months doing nothing about the claim, and has only just got around to looking at it. They have then hastily cobbled together a nifty 'fob-off,' because they realise that this claim is just a bit too much like hard work for them;
Or, they have actually spent 18 months trying to find ways of avoiding their responsibility - and have made no effort at all to be impartial - as they should be.

FWIW, I reckon the former is the most likely - in which case, you have probably been fobbed-off by a lazy and poorly-trained adjudicator whose skill-set relies mostly upon judicial-sounding waffle in order to intimidate claimants. The FOS have taken 18 months to come up with their pathetic excuse, and have then imposed a deadline upon you to come up with something better. Yes, it stinks, dunnit ? After all this time, I can only implore you not to give up on this. My meagre understanding of the FOS procedure is that your claim eventually gets chucked onto an 'Adjudicator's' desk - or quite probably emailed to them at home. The 'Adj.' then skims through it, looking for reasons to fob you off and earn their fee with as little effort as possible - either in a noisy open-plan 'typing-pool' of an office - or at home, watching GMTV & Jermey Kyle, whilst 'fobbing off' their own kids.

If you decide to challenge an Adjudication, then you can do so under certain circumstances - in which case, it will probably be referred to an actual Ombudsman. Naturally, they will not wish to overturn an FOS Adj's decision - so you would probably need to have some compelling evidence. There is then the Independent Assessor:-

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u..._reference.htm

Again - it's an avenue to consider - but we need to be able to show good reason for going down it.

What I would suggest is that you make the best use of the FOS that you can - because it involves no risk on your part - but of course, it can still take up years of your life. Eventually, if you can show that you are not gonna be fobbed off that easily, they may realise that it would be easier and cheaper to deal with your claim properly and fairly at last...

If that fails, then I guess the next course is going via the court route, and this entails a different way of thinking as regards the 'Burden of Proof.' I believe that the FOS put this burden upon the Lender, in that they must disprove the allegation of PPI mis-selling made by the claimant - and I believe that you may possibly be able to use this to challenge the FOS Adj's decision, as it appears that this burden is being put upon you in this case. For that reason, I humbly suggest that you consider continuing with the FOS - like a dog with a bone !!!

Going the court route, then I realise that may seem scary - and I think that is probably where Niddy and co. will have far better experience than myself. I post here as an unqualified non-professional layman, but my suggestion would be to try and confine your claim to the 'Small Claims' track in order to avoid financial risk. The issue of 'agency' seems to have been brought up by the FOS Adj. in order to intimidate you, and you have already commented upon the 'responsibility' aspect of buying a firm. Hopefully, some of AAD's more legally clued-up guys can elucidate - but the Law must surely prevent the 'cherry-picking' that the FOS Adj. reckons was the case here.

There is also a mention of the Purple Gang receiving a commission from the eventual lender for referring you to them - and if you have anything to prove this, then this would seem to be dynamite to my tiny mind. It may be arguable as to whether the term 'agency' in its strictest sense applies - but such 'secret commissions' were/are a viable argument as far as I recall - perhaps within the UTCCR terms. Surely - in plain Contract Law terminology - the payment by Purple of a commission to the lender proves that Purple were not acting as the (prospective) borrower's agent - and therefore must have been acting as the lender's agent - unless they can prove otherwise. Easier said than proven, though - and the shifting 'Burden of Proof' is like quicksand, sometimes !!!

You may find this link useful, if you haven't already used it:-

http://www.financial-ombudsman-problems.co.uk/

I apologise if my thoughts here are objectionable or useless - but they are my thoughts, ne'ertheless - expressed as they have occurred to me. Perhaps there may be summat useful in there.