Thread: Call me stupid but,

Originally Posted by colin roberts

I have been through all my paper work and cannot trace a policy document relating to PPI. To be fair they have sent me a letter every year entitled Annual Insurance Statement, but this only tells me that the rate was staying the same. I assumed it was for the house and contents only.

The mortgage was arranged by an insurance broker and you bet, it was and still is on an endowment basis. I feel now that we were conned all the way through the process. People were selling for commission and not what would suit us best.

Any advice on my next step would be appreciated.

Hello CR and welcome,

You are not stupid for not realising you had ppi, that was their duty to let you know. But i bet it might have been useful when you were off work. Then again they might not have paid up because of exclusions in the terms and conditions.

I had four loans and i did'nt know I had it They really do a great job don,t they. and you probably never received the ppi policy or the terms and conditions either. I didn't.

Your next move would be to send them a SAR asking for all information that they hold on you.

You mention that it was arranged via a broker, but you are right in that these sales of ppi would be commission based and the lender should have supplied you with information regarding the ppi and also cancellation rights.

Is the broker still in action, maybe send him one as well.

Full S.A.R - (Subject access request) for ppi

Originally Posted by colin roberts

Thanks for your helpful replies. I have just drafted a letter to the building society. Do you think that I will be able to reclaim back to 1996 or will I be limited to 6 years.
Is the interest rate that I can add still 8%
The broker I dealt with is not now in business, I regret to say.

Remember this sale of PPI by the broker, would have been commission based, They would have paid him a big incentive to appy it. There is a court case in the stickies regarding the company's responsibilities in this. I will try and link it to your thread.

As pom states claim back from 1996.

The Limitation Issue. this is a snippet from alanfromderby regarding this matter

As I understand it, claims for PPI misselling are based on misrepresentations made during the selling process. In some cases claimants may consider these misrepresentations to be fraudulent in nature (see earlier posts). There are also likely to be issues of concealment of facts and/or concealment of law.

My approach to the limitation issue is to not mention it unless it is raised by the loan company - at which point write back expressing your disappointment that they are trying to hide behind limitation, and that you consider that the limitation period will not apply due to section 32 and/or section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.

You will find plenty of information and caselaw available to support all three exclusions outlined in section 32.

Should the claim escalate into a county court action, I would only include it in your POC's if it has been raised by the loan company as a reason for them not refunding. If they then raise it in their defence I would suggest you file a response to their defence using all three sub-sections on an "and/or" basis - and I would also include section 14A as well, just to be absolutely sure.

More information and case law can be found in the supporting legislation stickies on the ppi forum

Originally Posted by colin roberts

A court case regarding commission paid to a broker as a result of a sale ,would be useful ammunition. Thanks for putting yourselves out.

Hey you're up early

here is the info relating to commission fees

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.

Full Text: Wilson v Hurstanger

Maybe add a bit of that to your letter

sorry to butt in on your thread, but around 1998 we had a mortgage thruogh a broker with standard life, the amount of commision that we paid to the broker was huge, somewhere in the region of 4,000 and we were never told the figure at the time of taking it out, where would i start to go about finding out about it?
BB

Originally Posted by colin roberts

I have been trying to calculate the interest on the money that I am asking to be refunded (£4.900). The calculator on the forum only goes back to 1999. Any idea how I can calculate back to 1996.

Good morning CR

Try one of these

England - Advanced - Excel
England - Advanced - Works