Jump to content


Ge Capital / Santander Storecards PPI - PRE Jan 2005 - Any Successes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3351 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Here is an explanation as to what the outcome and effect of the High Court PPI case and explains that brokers and intermediaries who sold PPI who were not covered by GISC may be more difficult than Banks and Insurers who were subject to from 2001...an interesting read

 

http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at DISP 3.1 to 3.10 in the FSA handbook..it states that for evidential purposes... pre-2005 agreements... it should be used as a 'guide'...does not say that it does not apply at all

 

 

Scope

The guidance applies to complaints about the sale of all types of PPI contract, whatever the basis on which it was sold and irrespective of whether the policy is still in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term (DISP App 3.1.1G).

For banks and insurers, the new regime covers complaints about PPI sales going back to 1st December 2001.

Brokers and intermediaries, however, have only been subject to FSA regulation since 14th January 2005. The FSA has confirmed that DISP applies to complaints against intermediaries about earlier sales if the intermediary was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter was covered by its rules.

Although the GISC code did not include many of the more detailed provisions now found in ICOBS, the FSA is satisfied that its general principles are sufficiently similar to those in the Handbook.

Sections in the final amended DISP text that have been given the status of "evidential provisions" will, however, only apply as guidance to complaints about pre-2005 sales (DISP App 3.10). Guidance is illustrative, but not binding, whereas compliance with an evidential provision will be taken as evidence that the firm has complied with FSA requirements.

For non-GISC sales (which would be outside the scope of DISP), complainants have to rely on common law principles, such as negligence or (where the broker was acting as agent of the insurer) the duty of utmost good faith or the general law on misrepresentation.

 

taken from

http://www.out-law.com/page-10509

Edited by means2anend
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With us they responded pretty quickly with a standard acknowledgment stating that it would take 8 weeks to investigate, the after 4 weeks there was a second letter appologising for the delay. Then at the eight week point they wrote enclosing a copy of one of the application forms, which was pre-populated as wanting PPI and also stated the occupation as Self-Employed, as typed up by the in-store staff.

 

Their main reason for declining the complaint was because they were not required to record their sales process at the time. I'm pretty sure that every company always has a standard training plan that they use for all sales staf, but there you go......

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi can you tell me which is the correct address for sending SAR requests to or just a request for PPI complaints...for a debenhams store card taken out pre-2005 and at time owned by GE Capital one...

 

 

I sent a request to ABBEY PLC

PO BOX 3

Chester Business Park

Chester

CH4 9HD

 

..and it was returned to sender (me) without ANY explanation

thnks

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...