Thread: Help with GE Money??

Originally Posted by cirrus

I sent a letter a few weeks ago to GE money as I took out a personal (secured) loan a few years ago for around £30,000. I paid a one-off amount of £2500 (added to loan) for PPI. We were told by the salesman that it would be a condition of the loan being offered. The loan was for 25 years and after 2 years I paid it back in full and received a return of premium of only £500! Naturally I consider £2000 for PPI for a 2 year period a little excessive.
GE money have written back to me saying, in short that the PPI was optional and that they gave me a 7 day cooling off period. The keep referring me back to 'the insurer' but do not tell me who this was and ended the letter by saying that they do not consider Midland & General (formerly Purple Loans) to have mis-sold the policy.

I guess this is a standard brush-off but wondered if anyone can give me guidance on how to proceed from here??

Thanks

Hello,

It is the normal "it wasn't me" tactic. The loan from GE money was sold to you by a broker Midland and General (purple loans). It would be commission based so therefore maybe ask them to tell you how much commission M&G got for mis-selling the ppi. Maybe state this law case precedent

I think the full text you will find in the court bundle for ppi in the stickies for ppi.

visit: FLA E-Recruitment System
Decision in Hurstanger v Wilson
[2007] EWCA Civ 299
This is may be of relevance to all members who pay fees to brokers.
Case Summary
The borrowers (Mr Wilson and Ms Burton) obtained a loan through a
broker. The broker had a fiduciary relationship with the borrowers and
received commission from the lender.
At issue was whether the broker had received secret commission from the
lender and whether informed consent had been given by the borrowers.
The borrowers signed a form which indicated that commission might be
paid but they argued that informed consent had not been given because
they did not know the amount of the commission.
It was held that the broker may only receive commission if the borrower
consented to this with full knowledge of all material circumstances. The
Court of Appeal held that the commission, in this case, was not “secret”
but informed consent had not been given as the amount of commission
had not been disclosed. (Accordingly they awarded the amount of the
commission plus 1.29% simple interest from the date of the agreement’s
inception).
The Court also held that in cases where the broker does not disclose
that she is in receipt of commission from the lender, the commission will be
“secret”, the broker potentially guilty of fraud, and the entire loan liable to
be rescinded.
Implications
The legal teams of all members who pay commission to brokers should
consider the impact of the decision on their business.

Food for thought