Pre 2005 PPI claim BMW Financial Services/London General Insurance

[bankingcollapse]

In instances where the loan provider was non regulated does anybody have an experience of PPI claims against the Underwriter?

The FOS have said it's not a problem that the provider was non regulated and they will go after the Underwriter, who is regulated.

 

Now, I was mis sold PPI several different ways, and even though the Underwriter had nothing to do with the actual sale of the policies the product they provided was impossible for me to claim on - amongst other things I was self employed at the time of the sale.

 

Regardless of my claim being successful or not, does anybody on here have any experience of claims against the Underwriter, whether or not the process is longer than a normal FOS PPI adjudication and whether not not I am able to take the Underwriter to court, if that is a quicker path?

[dx100uk]

name names please

but yes there are successes both ways.

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Oh right, ok!

BMW Financial Services mis-sold the PPI (unregulated at the time) and London General Insurance were the Underwriter's.

 

I am sure I will go down the FOS path with this complaint as they have told me they will go after London General Insurance in this instance,

 

any insight you can give me into complaints against Underwriter's would be a real help.

[dx100uk]

bmv are not the financiers

who is the bank behind them

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

I have no idea! How do I find that out? Is that who I need to pursue, and not the Underwriter's?

[dx100uk]

yes

 

you need to do some reading here and below in my sig links.

 

what was the finance for?

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Finance was for the purchase of several BMW's.

All included front loaded single premium PPI and I have at least 6 reasons for mis-sell.

 

I will find out tomorrow who the Bank behind BMW Financial Services was, but they did not mis-sell me the the policies

- BMW did who were unregulated,

so I am still confused as to what my options are?

 

 

I have read up a lot on PPI,

 

 

is there one of your sigs that is relevant to my particular circumstances?

[dx100uk]

urm..

 

it seems bmw are a very hard nut to crack.

 

no complaints to the FOS at all

so they fob everyone off

with the not regulated wriggle

 

there are also no successes with underwriters even st andrews insurance

 

dx

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

It is very frustrating as the circumstances surrounding my case have all the hallmarks of grossly mis-sold PPI!

 

Am I able to take BMW to court or are the FOS the only body that can rule on this

- meaning if you were unregulated you can effectively do as you please?

 

 

Tricky as I guess BMW have not broken the law as such,

just wondered if you knew of any test cases

-- is the Underwriter liable seeing as the policy they provided was something I clearly could never have claimed on?

 

Sorry for all the questions,

it's just a bit of a minefield to the uninitiated!

 

 

Is there anything you think can be done?

 

 

Seems so wrong that they can get away with it.

[dx100uk]

you most certainly can got court.

yourroute is your choice

might be worth firing off a reclaim to london lot

 

have you done the FOS CQ & spreadsheets etc

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Yep -- FOS Questionnaire all completed and submitted.

 

Initially wrote to BMW -- rejected as Unregulated so I then complained to London General Insurance -

- rejected as they didn't sell the policy.

 

I am in the queue with FOS and have been for 9 months.

 

I called for an update this morning and they say a specialist team will look at my case to see if there is a relationship between BMW & London General Insurance, and go from there.

 

Claims against Underwriters apparently take a lot longer than the current 12-18 month wait,

so am wondering if there is a quicker way for me to deal with this?

 

Do I need to speak to a Lawyer and get some proper legal advice re the court route perhaps?

 

Not sure who I would be taking to court though, BMW or London General Insurance?

[dx100uk]

you certainly dont need a lawyer

neither a claims company.

 

 

its easy to do it yourself

 

 

with bmw did you just give up after the first fob off?

 

the FSA guidelines might be useful as lenders should not 'just' fob you

off because they were 'not regulated' so can get away with it.

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Yes I gave up with BMW after initial rejection letter, naturally.

 

 

I thought that door had closed so moved on to Underwriters on the advice of FOS.

 

 

I guess thinking about it the FOS are only going after Underwriters because they are regulated and they can,

but are you saying I should go back to BMW?

 

 

Does the fact BMW's non regulation simply protect them from the FOS getting involved, but I can still go after them directly?

 

 

This sounds like it could be fun, who needs claims companies anyway ;-)

[dx100uk]

have a trawl through the FSA guidelines

 

 

go back to BMW

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Ok thanks, will do. Anything specific I am looking for within FSA guidelines?

[dx100uk]

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/guidance/gc12-04.pdf

[bankingcollapse]

Thanks,

I have found my original rejection letter from last year:

 

 

"According to our records you did purchase PPI with your agreements,

you may not be aware however that for claims in contract the cause of action accrues on the date of the breach of contract

and a six year limitation period runs from this date.

 

 

The agreements commenced prior to September 2002 so any alleged mis-selling would have taken place before this date,

therefore the limitation period has expired".

 

 

They go on to say I should complain to the dealership.

Now, I only became aware of any mis-selling during the media hype surrounding the 2011 high court ruling,

so I like the majority are still within time, right?

That's what the FSA guidelines above seem to say anyway.

 

 

So do I simply go back to BMW, reiterate why I was mis-sold and ask them politely to stop obstructing my claim and re pay all of my premiums + interest?

 

 

Not that simple I am sure, interested in what you think my next move should be.

[dx100uk]

yes

would nice if you scan that letter....

 

 

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

*********************************************************

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

try www.pdfescape.com TO BLANK STUFF,

*************************************************************

or

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use www.pdfmerge.com

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Well, after a very long wait and much legal arguing the FOS have written to me stating

"the underwriter has now agreed to accept responsibility."

 

My case now goes to an adjudicator who will examine the details and make a decision.

 

Any ideas how this might pan out?

I was self employed at the time, is that by itself a valid reason for mis-sell?

 

I have no idea if my policy would have ever paid out,

not that I would have needed it to as I had other ways to make payments

if anything had happened.

 

 

Also the PPI was single premium, isn't that frowned upon by the FOS?

 

I don't really understand PPI now, even with the vast knowledge available on forums etc

- so what chance did I have back then!

The whole issue was never properly explained,

which is just wrong and I was certainly never told I could buy a cheaper policy on the high street.

 

 

PPI was never discussed on future agreements, it was just assumed I needed it.

 

The wait goes on, but at least somebody is liable should it fall in my favour.

Edited September 16, 2015 by bankingcollapse
Punctuation

[dx100uk]

and bmw are wrong anyway

PPI reclaims cannot be statute barred.

 

 

front loaded PPI is quite ok

but as long as you've detailed you were self employer then that should be the end of it.

 

 

dx

[bankingcollapse]

Thanks dx - out of interest were there many / any car finance PPI deals pre-2005 that would have been suitable for self-employed

, or were they all for employed persons?

 

 

Surely that is systematic gross mis-selling if so?

 

 

I read somewhere that for self-employed to be able to claim they would have had to go bust or have ceased trading!

 

I have all of my signature pages detailing PPI and loan amounts

but none of the actual paperwork that went with them,

so impossible to see the finer details of my agreements

[dx100uk]

99% of self employed PPI was useless.

 

 

lots of wins all over the place.

[theoldrouge]

Because being self employed, in order to claim on 99% of policies,

 

you would have had to cease trading permanently, a term more onerous than for someone employed

 

An example from the FOS

 

104/3

self-employed consumer complains that PPI should not have been recommended to him

Mr J was a self-employed dental technician. He wanted a loan to pay for his wedding. Mr J had been self-employed for a number of years and already had some cover in place to protect his income if he found himself unable to work.

 

He called a loan provider to discuss his requirements. Once the terms of the loan had been agreed, the representative went on to recommend that he take out a single-premium PPI policy. He was reassured that this would protect his monthly payments in the event of unemployment, sickness or an accident. Mr J took out the policy.

 

He later saw some articles in the press suggesting that PPI may not be suitable for people who are self-employed. He became concerned about the way his policy had been sold to him.

 

When Mr J complained to the loan provider, it told him that his policy would provide him with unemployment cover. It said it had been a suitable recommendation for him at the time, and rejected his complaint. Unhappy with this response, Mr J brought his complaint to us.

 

complaint upheld

When we spoke to the loan provider, it told us it would be no more difficult for a self-employed customer to make a successful claim under this policy than for an employed customer.

 

So we carefully reviewed the policy documents that Mr J had been given. We found that for a self-employed customer to be covered if they became unemployed, their "business" would have to "permanently cease trading".

 

This meant that Mr J would have needed to have stopped working as a dental technician permanently to qualify for unemployment cover - which is very different from temporary unemployment.

 

We also listened to the phone call during which Mr J and the representative had discussed the policy. We found that unemployment cover for self-employed customers was not mentioned. We pointed this out to the loan provider - and reminded it that the policy had been recommended to Mr J as "suitable for his needs".

 

The loan provider responded by saying that it had given Mr J literature about the policy. But we noted that this had been supplied after he had made the decision to take it out.

 

Having considered the evidence, we concluded that the terms of Mr J's policy - in relation to self-employment - amounted to a significant and onerous restriction, and that the loan provider should have brought them to his attention. We also pointed out that the policy had been recommended to Mr J - and that it was the loan provider's obligation to ensure that it was suitable for him.

 

So he should not have needed to wade through the small print of his policy documents himself to check that it was suitable. In light of the evidence, we took the view that had Mr J been made aware of the implications of the policy, it is unlikely he would have taken it out.

[bankingcollapse]

Aside from whether or not the adjudicator thinks my PPI was mis-sold, are there any other hurdles to overcome? Loans were from 2000 onwards and BMW were unregulated at this time, did they have to subscribe to the General Insurance Standards Council code though for the FOS to have jurisdiction? I guess my real question is what does it actually mean in real terms when the FOS say 'the Underwriter has accepted responsibility'.

 

Thanks for the help thus far, I appreciate my case is quite complicated!

[dx100uk]

that they sold it

 

 

if it was mis sold is another matter

 

 

we really need to see the fos letter in full

 

 

dx