Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I wonder if anyone can help me, having read all the recent headlines re PPI i had a look at a loan we took out some 30 months ago with first plus. To be honest I am unsure why I took out PPI as have never done so before with anyother loan and wonder if it was pressure form the sales paerson but I cnat recall. I do also know that my husband had surgery for a back complaint some 6 years ago and see that this may make the policy for any furture claims invalid, agin not sure if this was discussed. Do I make the claim re this point or were we misold becasue it is a single premuim policy and I can now see that we will be paying for this after 5 years but only covered for 5 years( it is a 10 year loan)
I dont want to write to the company and sound as if I dont know what I am talking about, which clearly I dont.
I have a copy of the loan agreement, but is there any way I can get hold of the telephone conversation.
Any help appreciated
ta
You need to send off to Firstplus for a Suject Access Request this should give you everything relating to your account including telephone conversation recordings. Incidently did you get the loan direct from them or through a broker. If you read some of the other threads on here it will give you the information you need and there is a template for the SAR's.
Good luck I to am pursuing Firstplus.
If the loan was done through a broker this is who you complain to about mis sellinng. Not sure First Plus will hold the phone conversation or if the broker has it.
Pre existing medical issues should have been discussed and policys not covering full loan term are frowned on, so you may have a case.
You also need to consider who is covered for what. As far as I am aware Firstplus cover the first named person for life, sickness, unemployment etc. whereas the second named person is covered for life only.
It is very misleading and in my case incorrectly applied by them. They gave me the full cover although I get full pay from my employer when off sick and get death in service.
My husband gets none of this from his employer but they only covered him for life. Whatever suits them best really!