Colonnial/Chatham Finance/ Paragon - help needed!

[pinkkibby]

Hi

 

Just wanting some advice on a similar situation..it seems here is the place to be!

 

I'm helping my dad with a claim against Colonial/Chatham Finance which now appear to be Paragon as I've received a response from them. The basis of the complaint is that my dad was self employed & wasn't given details of T&Cs relating to self employment plus the cover wasn't described as optional. We have the agreement and the box relating to PPI is pre ticked and it doesn't state it is optional. He had no reason to query it at the time as was told he had to have it.

 

We received exactly the same letter as the user on this post ie it was sold in 1999 therefore the concept of an advised sale did not exist blah blah blah. I responded and said that whilst the sale was not advised, he was not given sufficient information to make a fully informed decision and the ppi was not described as optional anyway.

 

The letter we've just received back is a 2 liner stating 'our position remains the same, you are free to take whatever action you consider to be appropriate'. So they've not actually responded to the complaint points at all.

 

Not sure where to go from here - any advice?

 

I think I will start a new thread too but just wanted to post specifically here due to the success of the original poster.

 

Thanks

[pinkkibby]

Hi

Just wanting some help with a claim against Colonnial now Chatham Finance. The original response I got was actually from Paragon so it appears Chatham are part of that group.

 

The basis of the complaint is that my dad was self employed & wasn't given details of T&Cs relating to self employment plus the cover wasn't described as optional. We have the agreement and the box relating to PPI is pre ticked and it doesn't state it is optional. He had no reason to query it at the time as was told he had to have it.

 

The sale was made in August 1999 and the credit agreement was regulated by the CCA 1974. We have a copy of the agreement which has a section relating to PPI but the box was preticked and the cover is not clearly described as optional. The PPI is shown on the agreement but the interest on the premium is not shown, so the full cost of the cover is not clear.

 

Having submitted the complaint, we very quickly received a letter from Paragon stating that as it was sold in 1999, the concept of an advised sale did not exist and the loan was offered on an information only basis and decided for themselves whether to take it out.

 

I responded and said that whilst the sale was not advised, they had a duty of care to provide him with full information about the cover to enable him to make a fully informed decision which he wasn't and indeed wasn't given a choice in the matter.

 

The letter we've just received back is from Chatham Finance this time and is just a 2 liner stating 'our position remains the same, you are free to take whatever action you consider to be appropriate'. So they've not actually responded to the complaint points at all.

 

Not sure where to go from here - in their response they mentioned going to the Finance & Leasing Association. I didn't know anything about the FLA, I just thought it was the FOS who deal with these things. Having read up on the FLA it sounds as though they don't have much clout at all.

 

If anyone can give me some advice on my next move that would be much appreciated!

 

Thanks

[ims21]

Hi

 

So you have effectively had two refusals.

 

Now fos do sometimes take on some of these older cases so if it were me I'd contact them first, give them the background and see if it is with their remit.

 

If not then the FLA would be the next step.

 

If you feel you are able to prove on the balance of probabilities that this product was mis-sold you can use court.

 

ims

[pinkkibby]

Thanks for your help. Will contact FOS and hope for the best!

 

Not sure how to go about doing a claim through the court but no doubt there will be plenty of info on here to help me decide if that's a possibility too.