Difficult to say based on the info you've provided. If it was a distance (mail or internet) application and you did actively opt to have the cover and it covers self-employed people then it's difficult to see where the grounds for complaint lie. If there was a member of staff involved and it actually excluded self- employed you may have a case. More info needed.

It is right. They didn't sell the product and the complaint that was upheld was not against them. Therefore they cannot be forced to do anything. You should cancel the cover (if you haven't done so already) which will generate a rebate, albeit a less than proportionate one. You should then go back to the FSCS and ask to be compensated for the PPI you will pay over the remaining term of the loan as a result of the less than proportionate rebate. If you have already signed a full and final disclaimer then FSCS may not consider it any further but it is worth a shot.

None, they'll just ignore it anyway. If there is any kind of offer made they will use their own calculation methods. There is also plenty of room for dispute over the Mis-selling. Did it cover you? Did it exclude self employed? Were you covered with restrictions? Did you know about the restrictions? What did you think you were covered for? Did you seek to clarify it? Did you get a policy summary? I'd do your research first, it doesn't pay just to wade in blindly. That said, with MBNA their uphold rate is ridiculous at FOS which suggests there was something being done wrong there.

For what it's worth it is one that I share.

The lender is only the company who provided the finance. Any complaint needs to go to the company who sold the policy which would be the broker. With it being 2004 they would not have had to consider it anyway. You can try complaining to the insurer but if they stick to their guns you are probably stuffed unfortunately.

It's always been subject to tax. However, since October of this year all banks are required to deduct it at source. Previously some used to pay the full amount to the customer and let them sort their own tax out. Unfortunately for the OP if he/she hasn't done so then there may be a significant tax liability owed to HMRC.

I can't comment on advice given by other people. My comments are based around my own personal knowledge and nothing else.

Go to FOS. They are your best bet. Under the Financial Services Act they are entitled to make decisions based on "what is fair and reasonable" in their opinion. This regularly results in complaints being upheld there that would never stand up on court and no right of recourse for the respondent. If they don't uphold then its probably time to let this one go. As per my previous post, CMcs can do nothing you can't. And whilst this isn't a legal matter (just a complaint of unfair treatment) if you do to court you are making it one and hence the responsibility will be on your to prove lawful wrongdoing.

Incidentally, I would get the idea of CMCs out of your head. They can do nothing that you can't do. They don't have some kind of silver bullet and don't have any kind of influence with banks, most of whom treat them with polite professional courtesy, but on the whole hold nothing but contempt for them. They are not some kind of skilled courtroom brawlers who will force the bank to hand over money. At best they will write a couple of ranting standard letters, get told to do one and then go to FOS (if your time limit hasn't expired by then). Which you are capable of doing yourself and, to be honest, are much more likely to be believed.

This is quite likely. As regards FOS it has existed since 2001 which the Financial Services & Markets Act 2000 came into effect and also created the FSA (now the FCA). It took over a number of previous sector specific Ombudsman schemes. It has not been rebranded since. The FCA tbh is just the same old toy in new packaging. But it doesn't not adjudicate on consumer disputes.

Three reasons: 1) FOS is free. Court action isn't (especially if you lose) 2) You've got much more chance of a positive result. FOS tend to make it up as they go along and consider what they believe to be "fairness" as well as law and regulation. If you go to court you will need to prove lawful wrongdoing. 3) You always have the option of going to court if you don't get the outcome you want at FOS (though its unlikely you'd win). FOS will not consider a matter that is subject to court action unless it is discontinued. It is usually a bad idea to go to court over PPI. Sure you might get lucky with an overworked bank legal department unable to spare the time to deal with a small fry PPI matter over a couple of grand. But if they do turn up then you will generally struggle.

Loans don't get compound interest added to them. That's a credit card thing. They usually have an APR and interest is charged to the account typically monthly. I think you're barking up the wrong tree with this one. If I understand you correctly, the loan and PPI was sold in a Currys branch by a member of their staff. Therefore, it is Currys who you should be complaining to. sending a SAR to HSBC/HFC is pointless unless you want a copy of the paperwork first. All the information you need to complain is your loan account details and reasons for complaint.

You're being a cynic. Firstly, the FOS questionnaire is the standard form across the industry for obtaining relevant information for a PPI complaint. Secondly, they don't refer cases to the Ombudsman. That would be done by you and is the next option if you are unhappy with their decision.

Whoops, wrong poster. Ignore that one it was t18 con in post 11. That's what happens when people start hijacking each other's threads ;-)

Assuming that get have followed the guidelines and given the FOS rights in the decision letter, this is not going to do any good. The OP stated that the offer was made a year ago. If this is the case it's way too late for FOS to have jurisdiction.

You can ask and they may provide you one. However, the problem is that if you dispute it, they can indeed turn around and argue that by banking the cheque you have, basically, accepted the offer. Even if they don't. under normal circumstances your FOS rights have expired. So whether you agree with the offer or not it's a bit late to do anything about it. Might be an idea to check your decision letter. They may have said something along the lines that if they do not hear from you within a set time frame they will take this as acceptance and consider the matter closed. You often find people don't read them very closely and are more interested in the number of zeroes on the cheque but wording can be important.

1) No it's not PPI. It is similar in what it covers but the key difference is that PPI is taken out to cover a debt repayment. ASU is just set up to provide a certain percentage of your monthly income. 2) Yes, it is a feature of general insurance contracts that either party can end the contract subject to giving the other a minimum notice period (usually 30 days). Check your terms & conditions. They can do any of the things you have suggested. But if they take a commercial decision that they no longer wish to offer this type of cover this is their right as a business. There are plenty of providers who you can buy alternative cover from just go on google.

You wouldn't mate, believe me. I'm sorry to hear about your personal difficulties. But I'm not willing to comment on this matter any further. It's been made perfectly clear to me that considered and reasoned opinion is not welcome on this site unless its what people want to hear and that reasoned and factual comment are frowned upon in favour of cheerleading and sycophancy. Good luck with everything but I'm not getting involved any further.

No it's not wrong. they're a business not a charity. they're entitled to offer to lend (or not) on whatever terms they see fit. Like I said the first time if the OP doesn't like the terms then there are plenty of other lenders. If someone's been genuinely wronged and has a good case I'll be the first to tell them and advise them on how to put it. But I've got no interest in tubthumping, banging the drum, giving false hope or encouraging people to make complaints that are patently unjustified (not necessarily referring to the OP in this thread here) just on the off chance and because I don't like banks. If open and honest opinions are not welcome here and it is a forum where people are simply expected to toe the "banks are the root of all evil and everyone who complains is automatically due a refund" line then no maybe it's not. I'm out for now may pop back when the OP has scanned up the documents.

To clarify a bit further, there are two possible meanings to the cover being "compulsory". The first one is legally compulsory, which it is not and nobody should be telling the OP otherwise. The second meaning is that it is compulsory as a condition of them agreeing to lend the OP the money. If this is the case then that is their own commercial decision and there is no comeback to it.

That may have been one of the early issues which kicked off the whole fiasco. However, the reasons it was deemed to be a problem were: 1) PPI and whether it was taken did not form any part of lenders credit approval process and yet people were being told that it did. If PPI had formed part of the credit approval process the whole thing would never have been as big as it is now. 2) Nowadays it is generally agreed under the provisions of the lending code (I think there might be something in the banking conduct of business rules as well) that lenders will not force customers to buy insurance products from them as a condition of granting credit. That hasn't always been the case though and ten years ago they may have been free to do so if they wanted. Even now they are perfectly free to insist in suitable insurance cover being taken if that's what they want, just not that it has to be with them. However, most don't. You can only judge a complaint against the standards and expectations in place at the time (if I was being cynical I would say unless your name is FOS but anyway...) The lending code only applies to CCA regulated unsecured lending anyway and not to mortgages. It's always been accepted that banks are entitled to insist on suitable insurance cover being taken to cover mortgage debt. Buildings cover is universal, however, life cover and even less commonly PPI can be insisted on as well. One of the reasons mortgage PPI is much harder to win Mis- sale on. Bottom line if the OP was told the insurance was a condition of the offer and it was, whatever type of insurance it is, this is not grounds for complaint. If the OP didn't like the terms of the offer he/she was free to look elsewhere. In this instance the OP was told that the choice was there to purchase it from any suitable provider and chose to use the lender out of convenience. So there isn't even the argument about being forced to use them for it.

It's probably due to the fact that they don't hold records any further back than that. Don't like to play the killjoy but I wouldn't get her hopes up. A catalogue company wouldn't have been regulated at the time hence no access to FOS. It's probably going to be difficult to prove her employment status from 25 years ago as well.

Hi Lulilu I missed the part where you said you had already made a complaint if I'm honest. I echo the advice above. If you can then post up their decision letter so we can see what to make of it. Makes it so much easier to give an informed opinion. The problem you have is that you have asked for an opinion based on statute and legal authority, but this is not really a legal matter. It is a complaint against a firm which you believe to have treated you unfairly. As per my earlier post if you go to court you are going to be asked what law you think has been breached and what proof you have. How would you answer that? FOS might be a better option if it is within their jurisdiction from so long ago as they consider not only law but what they consider to be "fair" (basically means they can make it up as they go along with no recourse for the bank). However, the upshot of it is this. The insurances, if they were insisted on, were insisted on to protect the lender's interest. They don't want to risk your house burning down and you not being able to pay off the loan. Likewise they don't want to risk you passing away and them being left with a house they may not be able to sell for its market value. Hence the insistence on buildings and life cover. If you think I am wrong then there's not much I can do about that. However, I can 100% assure you that FOS has the right to (and generally will) refuse to consider a complaint regarding a legitimate exercise of commercial judgement. If you don't believe me I can only suggest you call them and ask. Your problem is that the issues you have raised would appear to fall into this category. If you really were told you had to take out contents cover you might be able to make a complaint stick about this ( though proving it would be pretty difficult). This might be considered unreasonable since the lender has no insurance interest in you taking out such a policy (the loan is not secured on your possessions but the home itself). But I think you're going to struggle with anything else. Don't forget also the complaint is being looked at cold 20 years on by someone who was not remotely involved in the events being complained about. It's possible that even they may not get the thought process behind the original demand that you take out the insurances. But that doesn't make it wrong. Post the decision letter and I will see what I can do.

The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything. My honest opinion is that, assuming the insurances really were a condition of the offer, Lulilu is on a loser. All they have to do is say "legitimate exercise of our commercial judgement". In those circumstances FOS can't even consider it. The bank did what they thought was necessary to protect their own interests. Lulilu was free to look elsewhere if he/ she didn't like it.

What law do you think has been broken? What evidence do you have to support your position? Answer those questions and you will get your answer.