Having signed up here not too long ago in my quest to ascertain my rights with regards to whether or not I may have a valid claim against BMW Financial Services and/or the dealership that sold me the car, I now believe that I have been mis-sold PPI. In addition I also believe that the PPI product sold to me was misrepresented by the dealership.

My reasons for posting here is to share my thoughts and to receive informed opinions and advice from the experts on this forum as to the validity of my beliefs. As such, any informed opinions or advice on the way forward will be hugely appreciated.

Background:

I purchased a BMW in April 1999 on a 36-month 'Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974'. This agreement was signed at the dealers' premises on the day I took delivery of the vehicle (30th April 1999).

Having obtained a copy of the original credit agreement from BMW Financial Services, I see that PPI was definitely charged. I already had all bank statements (bar 3) showing the monthly payment, including PPI, being debited (via direct debit) in favour of BMW Financial Services.

I also noted that the Agreement Number was handwritten but all other details were pre-printed, including the PPI Payments (referred to as ‘Credit Insurance premium payable with each rental’). The monthly payment made via direct debit included this premium – a total of 35 payments were made between 4th June 1999 and 4th April 2002 (inclusive).

I then raised a PPI claim via resolver.co.uk stating the reasons as to why I believe the PPI was mis-sold. BMW Fin. Services wrote back stating "....can confirm that our records show that you were not sold a BMW-branded policy with your agreement" and goes on to say "You may wish to contact your BMW Centre to check whether you purchased a non-BMW-branded policy from them". The agreement clearly shows PPI being added (paid monthly, not front loaded). The agreement is signed just below a sentence stating "Signature on behalf of BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited accepting this Agreement". As such, this is where I believe the PPI product was misrepresented (I.e. nowhere was it apparent that there was another party involved other than the BMW dealership (Park Lane) and BMW Financial Services.

Following the above I then wrote to BMW Park Lane forwarding the correspondence from BMW Financial Services and the PPI claim case notes downloaded from resolver.co.uk. Received a response from the Compliance Manager stating that my PPI claim was rejected, but no mention as to why I was sold a 'non-BMW-branded' PPI product. The reasons for rejection appear to be standard response, which has no bearing to my circumstances as they were in April 1999, further reinforcing my view that the PPI policy was mis-sold (i.e. they seem to hold that the fact that I was in fulltime employment at the time was a sufficient reason to take out PPI, notwithstanding the fact that I had life, critical illness and sickness cover from my employer, and had good grounds to be certain that I will not be made redundant, and if I was, then my remuneration package would have covered the outstanding balance).

It appears to me that the dealership has implicitly acknowledged that they sold the PPI policy, but there is nothing with regards to it being a 'non-BMW-branded' product.

As such, where do I stand with regards to the following, and what would be the best way forward;

1. Pursuing the PPI Claim - BMW Park Lane have not stated that the correspondence I received reject my PPI claim was their Final Response, which I gather needs to be the case before I take the claim to FOS.
   
2. Until 26th June 2017 I did not know that I had being sold a 'non-BMW-branded' PPI product since there is no indication whatsoever in the agreement I signed, and I don't recall BMW Park Lane even discussing the PPI policy with me. Their recent response also indicates that they did not know my circumstances, and did not attempt to understand them before adding PPI to the agreement. There was now clear way of refusing the PPI product when signing the agreement.
   

Any and all advice gratefully received. Thanks in advance.

You'd have to research who were the underwriters

Even if you could prove the dealer sold it

The claim would still be against the ins co.

As all the rest would have been unregulated

IMHO. getting any back from BMW = Not a chance

was it London General Insurance?

an old (though non updated thread) for eg

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?384391-Pre-2005-PPI-claim-BMW-Financial-Services-London-General-Insurance

fos then may be the next step, re the underwriter.

maybe give the fos a ring, see what they suggest?

Ford & dx100uk, thanks for your feedback.

There is no doubt that the dealer and/or BMW Financial Services sold the PPI policy since they were the only parties involved in the sale.

Further Question:

Does the fact that I signed a 'Hire-Purchase Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974',as clearly stated on the signed agreement, at the dealer's premises, and counter signed by someone on behalf of "BMW Financial Services (GB) Limited accepting this Agreement" not mean that the agreement was regulated, and that both are jointly liable, if not for mis-selling the policy, then for not divulging that the policy was not a 'BMW-branded' policy (i.e. misrepresentation)?

So far, BMW Financial Services have confirmed the following;

a) That they did not sell me a PPI policy, but the monthly direct debit clearly includes the PPI premium, and the direct debit was set up to pay BMW Financial Services, so they would have received the PPI premium on a monthly basis

b) That I may have been sold a 'non-BMW-branded' policy by the dealer. As such, given that I did not sign a separate document for the PPI policy

(i.e. details of the PPI was included in the same HP agreement and there was no option to not take the PPI - once the agreement was signed, one would automatically sign up to PPI as well). Was the above accepted practice back in 1999, and did it not violate the Consumer Credit Act of 1974?

Section 56

However as I said unless the underwriters were regulated you don't stand a chance on a 1999 agreement

ppiking

try find out who the 'underwriters' were. maybe the fos will know from their experience.

assuming it was London like that other thread, have a look at the fos decisions site for eg's. there are a number of recent upheld ppi complaints against them even though they were not the seller/dealer/garage re hp/car purchase, even purchase as far back as 1999.

even if it was a different underwriter, as long as they were regulated...

Thanks again.

Took a while,

the dealership has now informed to me that London General Holdings Ltd were the underwriters of this PPI policy,

that they had changed their name to TWG Services Ltd in December 2006.

Does this sound right?

Ford, will have a look on 'ombudsman decisions' and report back.

I was also told that the above was a BMW branded policy, which contradicts BMW Financial Services' initial response!

As such, awaiting a response from BMW Financial Services with an explanation for this contradiction.

So, it appears that London General Holdings Ltd, renamed as TWG Services Ltd in Dec 2006, and London General Insurance Company Ltd. are all companies that fall within The Warranty Group umbrella. They share the same registered address at Companies House and contact details lodged with the FCA.

Only one FOS decision against TWG Services Ltd. but plenty against London General Insurance Company Ltd.

Lodged claim using the contact details on the FCA register.

Firstly, thank you to those who responded to my questions, which certainly set me on the right path.

So, after almost a year since I set out to claim against the PPI policy that was wrongfully sold to me, I finally received payment from TWG Services Ltd. It was a long arduous journey.....

In a nutshell here is a largely abridged version of events:

1. BMW Financial Services tried to fob me off by stating (in writing) that the policy I was sold by BMW Park Lane (London) was not a BMW-branded policy, which (much) later turned out to be not true. BWM FS deliberately held back evidence of this fact, which only came to light when a FOS adjudicator questioned them and informed me!

My mistake was not sending a SAR before I first approached BMW FS with the complaint. However, this may not have mattered much since BMW were not regulated until Jan 2005, but my approach may have changed had I known that from the start and, thanks to the suggestions made on here and elsewhere, may have pursued the insurer much earlier.

2. Once BMW shrugged off responsibility I then approached TWG Services Ltd, who I was told (by BMW) was insurer - London General Holdings Ltd, the insurer who underwrote the policy in April 1999, was renamed/rebranded as TWG Services Ltd. on 14 Jan 2005. What a coincidence!

3. I then approached TWG Services Ltd, who didn't deny that they sold the policy, but firmly pushed back stating that they had provided all necessary information for me to make an informed decision on whether or not PPI was suitable. As such, since I "opted" to take the policy up that they cannot upheld my complaint. Oh well.....this was 2 months into the journey.

4. In October 2017 I lodged a formal complaint against TWG Services Ltd (with FOS), which turned out to be the most frustrating part of the exercise since my complaint was first passed between 3 or 4 adjudicators, and finally to an ombudsman - seems like they were playing 'pass the parcel' possibly due to the fact that my case was rather complex and I presented quite a compelling argument, circumstances as to why I thought PPI was miss-sold, and clear evidence to back it all up, including copies of employment contracts, earnings/income, insurance policies etc, all which clearly show that I had adequate cover at the time, and throughout the duration of the agreement (36 months).

5. They key success was to get London General Insurance Company Ltd to accept responsibility for the sale, which I was informed by the FOS that they had managed to do. Note that TWG Services Ltd, London General Holdings Ltd and London General Insurance Company Ltd appear separate, but have the same registered address and are/were staffed by the same individuals. The twist is that London General Holdings Ltd became TWG Services Ltd on 14th Jan 2005, but London General Insurance Company Ltd has been regulated since July 1993. This is key to the outcome of the decision in my favour.

6. I had to labour the point that all three companies noted in item 5 above essentially are part of the same group, and had the same staff, so were responsible for the mis-selling. In the end London General Insurance Company Ltd accepted responsibility.

7. Not withstanding the above, my next battle was with one particular adjudicator, who I firmly believe had the insurer's ad BMW's interest at heart as he failed to acknolwdge the evidence, and refused to change his decision even after point out the errors of his judgement! At that point I asked for the case to be submitted to the Financial Ombudsman for a final decision.

8. The decision went in my favour - the ombundsman agreed with me, and acknolwdged that since BMW Financial Services and BMW Park Lane were not regulated at the time, the insurer was liable, and since London General Insurance Company Ltd had accepted responsiblity for the sale, they should be liable, which is exactly what I wanted.

9. So to end it all, and to prove that they were one and the same company, today I recived a cheque from TWG Services Ltd stating the following:

"We would like to apologies for any inconvenience or distress caused by this situation and would like to assure you of our best intentions at all times"!

What hypocrites!

I would be happy to share my experience of dealing with this situation with anyone who needs help in battling it out with any of the organisations noted above. However, before doing anything first send a SAR requesting everything the company concerned about you and your dealings with that company and information they may have passed on to other companies.

Many thanks for concluding your thread PPIking.

And well done on achieving your result......thread title amended.

Regards

Andy

Great story and i'm glad i was right by pointing the stick at the underwriters..

Well done!!

Dx