Hfc ppi claim with fos

[the tinkerman]

Hi

 

Had a few past loans with ppi claims from 1988 onwards,

now been with FOS for over 16 months.

 

I found 4 copies of legal agreements in the loft

but the bottom part of the agreements were beyond repair and could not make out at all,

 

the top parts of each agreement were readable and you can clearly make out my name, address, the acc numbers,

ppi showing single premium, life cover, sickness and redundancy cover with the figures showing and total figure with interest added

and the optional box has a cross already in the box which is printed rather that been ticked with a pen and

 

each agreement at the top has the HFC stamp on paid in full with the date it was paid off.

 

When I originally sent copies of the info I had to HFC as above

they stated that since it was over a six year period that they have destroyed all records,

and although they have acknowledged they were copies of legal agreements they needed info as to why I thought they were missold.

 

I can remember when the loans were taken out that I was told in no uncertain terms on each occasion that unless I took the ppi out

that I would not get the loans regardless of my employment status, and

 

since I have found the information from my employer at the time to prove that I got paid work or play,

had life cover and got redundancy pay along with a pension.

 

All the above info was then sent to the FOS over a year ago,

but now because then agreements don't show the term of the agreements

( ie) how long they were taken out for due to wear and tear

 

the ombudsman is now stating that he needs to ask HFC for more information regarding the terms etc

which obviously as per HFC final response letter

which the FOS has had a copy they are not going to have as they have already stated

 

they have destroyed all the records so I don't see what that is going to achieve,

 

and even if they do find anything surely then that is illegal to say they have destroyed all records if they have not!

 

But now I get the distinct impression from what the FOS has told me that if HFC have no info regarding this issue,

then without that it is down to HFC bank as to whether they accept my claim or reject it

based on the information I have managed to salvage and

 

from the vibes I was getting from the ombudsman

if HFC have not got any info regarding the terms

then HFC would reject my claim and the ombudsman would side with them.

 

It seems to me u cannot win with these people even if you have got evidence to prove that u have had single premium ppi with interest added

and box pre crossed and then stamped with HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid

 

and you can then prove as to why it was missold with evidence from your employer at the time

 

l though that would count for something but obviously not,

has this been a complete waste of my time and effort.

 

Any thoughts please.

[dx100uk]

if the ppi was typed then its obv it was compulsory

 

cant really see how anything about your works cover plays any part here.

 

dx

[the tinkerman]

Hi

 

On two of the agreements the figures where written in pen but the cross in the box for the optional ppi was already typed in, the other two loans the figure were written in pen and the box for the optional ppi was already ticked in pen when they were presented to me.

 

As regards my employer at the time, and going off the letter I received from HFC, I thought you had to prove why you thought it had been missold and as I already had sickness,life, and redundancy cover through work then it was pretty obvious that I therefore did not require ppi as it was of no use to me.

 

 

Tinks

[dx100uk]

yes so the ppi was selected by them, or already type ticked

so def mis-sale.

 

the works stuff is exactly a classic mis-sale too even by the fos site!

[the tinkerman]

Cheers dx

 

Tinks

[mightymouse_69]

yes so the ppi was selected by them, or already type ticked

so def mis-sale.

 

the works stuff is exactly a classic mis-sale too even by the fos site!

 

That's a massive assumption.

 

You do not know how the sale was conducted and the processes which were gone through. It is quite possible that PPI was discussed orally (say in a meeting or over the phone) with the information being recorded on a computer and then printed for signatures. I have an agreement with a 'typed' X in a box for an optional product. I most definitely opted for this myself - when I was sat in the guy's office going through the application.

 

In any event, all of this is academic if there is insufficient documentary evidence to look into... which takes me back to the OP's question:

 

I don't suppose you have any statements showing payments towards the loans? This should reveal the duration and at least give something for HFC to work off.

[dx100uk]

you obv have no past dealings or knowledge of how HFC operate then MM?

 

it is very well known the HFC printed the agreements with pre typed X in the box

 

curry's/PCworld ones were all like this

 

and also the one whereby it was signed in branch in those little rooms they had.

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

you obv have no past dealings or knowledge of how HFC operate then MM?

 

it is very well known the HFC printed the agreements with pre typed X in the box

 

curry's/PCworld ones were all like this

 

and also the one whereby it was signed in branch in those little rooms they had.

 

dx

 

No indication that this was a DSG/DFS loan (and with this being single premium, I doubt it is a store loan), so one of your points falls away straight off.

 

In any event, the presence of a computerised tick or cross is not alone a sign of mis-selling. As I said, PPI could have been discussed, opted into, and the credit agreement printed merely showing a record of whatever discussion had gone before. The poster has said PPI was discussed.

 

So, dx, I think your posts were really bad advice. One, because it was just wrong. But also because it ignored the OP's main (and overriding) issue - the lack of documentary evidence.

[dx100uk]

urm.. all of a sudden after a year of being away you comeback and this time, you are now a PPI expert....

 

i'll let the OP read the numerous HFC PPI threads here and their subsequent successes ....

and make their own decisions based upon fact rather than someones pure speculation

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

urm.. all of a sudden after a year of being away you comeback and this time, you are now a PPI expert....

 

i'll let the OP read the numerous HFC PPI threads here and their subsequent successes ....

and make their own decisions based upon fact rather than someones pure speculation

 

dx

 

I was fairly poorly and busy with other things for a while - though I visited the site, but didn't use my account.

 

I never said I was an expert - I think what I said was just common sense. A computerised tick/cross does not necessarily mean the policy was mis-sold. There is no way that one can give this firm indication without gathering a lot more information - no matter what your prejudices are. Especially when the OP clearly mentions that PPI was discussed. So, with respect, when it comes to "pure speculation" I suggest that you are the guilty party.

 

In any event, and as I said, the issue of mis-sale is largely academic. The real issue is lack of paperwork.

[the tinkerman]

Hi mm

 

Well

 

A,

this was done in a office and I even remember the managers name and him telling me that I would not get these loans without ppi,

 

B,

even though you can only make out the top half of the agreements,

it still shows clearly my account no, date taken out, name, address, and the ppi breakdown including interest

and fair enough you cannot make out the term of the loans but it has a great big HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid and

 

yes I paid a couple of these loans off early but surely it would not take a rocket scientist to then just take the term from the date the agreement

was taken out to the date each one was paid in full.

 

As for having any of my statements showing payments towards my loans

not a chance as these were 1988 onwards and unless you had all your statements

this would not reveal the duration anyway,

 

furthermore as for giving something for HFC to work off,

well in their final response letter to me they state

 

" We have received your legal agreements for the above accounts

however we still require further documentation that supports your claim that ppi was missold on the accounts in question"

 

to which I have also sent to them full documentation of my sickness, life, redundancy, pension insurance cover from my employer at the time these loans were taken out.

 

So all in all they have that plus copies of legal agreements

which and fair enough you cannot make out the term of the loans

but it has my account no, date taken out, name, address, and the ppi breakdown

including interest and a great big HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid

 

personally I would certainly not call that a lack of documentary evidence,

 

I would say it was pretty damming evidence especially finding what I did given how long ago it was.

 

I mean there are companies out there that claim you do not even need ANY documentation to reclaim your ppi

just the name of your bank and apparently are successful and

 

like dx has stated you only need to look at HFC track record regarding the misselling of ppi

and the threads relating to them on here,

 

not to mention the fact that back in 2008 HFC were fined over a million pounds for the misselling of ppi,

and that is not a assumption that is a fact.

 

Tinks

[mightymouse_69]

Hi mm

 

Well A, this was done in a office and I even remember the managers name and him telling me that I would not get these loans without ppi, B, even though you can only make out the top half of the agreements, it still shows clearly my account no, date taken out, name, address, and the ppi breakdown including interest and fair enough you cannot make out the term of the loans but it has a great big HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid and yes I paid a couple of these loans off early but surely it would not take a rocket scientist to then just take the term from the date the agreement was taken out to the date each one was paid in full.

 

As for having any of my statements showing payments towards my loans not a chance as these were 1988 onwards and unless you had all your statements this would not reveal the duration anyway, furthermore as for giving something for HFC to work off, well in their final response letter to me they state " We have received your legal agreements for the above accounts however we still require further documentation that supports your claim that ppi was missold on the accounts in question" to which I have also sent to them full documentation of my sickness, life, redundancy, pension insurance cover from my employer at the time these loans were taken out.

 

So all in all they have that plus copies of legal agreements which and fair enough you cannot make out the term of the loans but it has my account no, date taken out, name, address, and the ppi breakdown including interest and a great big HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid so personally I would certainly not call that a lack of documentary evidence, I would say it was pretty damming evidence especially finding what I did given how long ago it was.

 

I mean there are companies out there that claim you do not even need ANY documentation to reclaim your ppi just the name of your bank and apparently are successful and like dx has stated you only need to look at HFC track record regarding the misselling of ppi and the threads relating to them on here, not to mention the fact that back in 2008 HFC were fined over a million pounds for the misselling of ppi, and that is not a assumption that is a fact.

 

Tinks

 

Hi,

 

Documents are fairly important - I am not sure what companies would say none are needed and in what context they say this. As for the FSA fine in 2008 - this applied to HFC's conduct between 2005 and 2007 and focused on the suitability of HFC's advice and their record keeping.

 

I understand your situation with HFC not having records and the loan duration not being clear. It seems as if something where you'll have to see what happens with the ombudsman - frustrating as it is.

[dx100uk]

oh how I wish we could publish that blog from an hfc branch manager that turned whistleblower

 

if you really believe that hfc did not carry out such practices before and after that dates

in exactly the same closed room situation as 10'000's of others mugs that got fleeced blind

described exactly by tinkerman......enough said.

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

oh how I wish we could publish that blog from an hfc branch manager that turned whistleblower

 

if you really believe that hfc did not carry out such practices before and after that dates

in exactly the same closed room situation as 10'000's of others mugs that got fleeced blind

described exactly by tinkerman......enough said.

 

dx

 

I'm not saying that such practices did not occur.

 

What I am saying is that even with the above being true, it is premature to make a post saying that this policy was definitely mis-sold.

 

For a start, we have the problem of missing information.

 

That's before you come to having to prove which regulatory provisions were breached in this particular sale.

 

That's my point. I'm not saying that banks are virtuous. I'm saying that your post was not great advice to be given at this stage.

[the tinkerman]

edited

[the tinkerman]

Hi mm

 

Like I said even though you can only make out the top half of the agreements due to wear and tear, it still shows clearly my account no, date taken out, name, address, and the ppi breakdown including interest and fair enough you cannot make out the term of the loans but it has a great big HFC stamp PAID IN FULL with the date paid and yes I paid a couple of these loans off early but surely it would not take a rocket scientist to then just take the term from the date the agreement was taken out to the date each one was paid in full so what I cannot get my head round is why the missing information of the term of these loans is such a big issue apart from adding/calculating the 8% interest as I would just be happy with the figure I originally paid for the ppi back, I can therefore only surmise that HFC somehow think the agreements I have sent to them are fake or that I have somehow obtained a stamp from HFC and stamped and dated the dam things myself in which case I would gladly take court action to prove otherwise.

 

 

Also why would anyone in their right mind take out PPI if you were already covered through your works it would just be a complete waste of money, like I said it I was quite categorically told I would not get these loans unless the ppi was taken out, and as regards the typed cross and pre ticked cross for the so called OPTIONAL PPI well if you really wanted the PPI then why did they not let you fill it in yourself and then ask you to sign that you have done just that! fair enough they get you to sign the bottom of the agreement for the loan but if you had also filled in the ppi section yourself and signed to say that you had done so then they would have no comebacks whatsoever would they regarding the miss- selling of PPI, simple enough to put into practise but we all know WHY they did not do that Don't we as dx quoted enough said.

[dx100uk]

between myself and IMS21 I expect we have all the required T&C's for all your loans if required.

 

so what you are saying is you don't know how many months the loans ran for

and were they refinanced [in a chain?]

 

dx

[the tinkerman]

Got it in one dx

 

Although I don't think one or two were refinanced as their is a gap of 5 years between the dates taken out to the dates paid,

 

the other two

 

the first one was paid off early

so could have been refinanced

 

but I can't honestly remember that far back

 

but all in all I do know that they have all been paid off.

 

Tinks

[dx100uk]

I know this might sound weird at this stage of a claim

 

but you HAVE sent an SAR to HFC at some point, haven't you?

 

dx

[the tinkerman]

I did not see the point dx

 

after their final response letter stated that

“the accounts that your complaint refers to were closed over six years ago.

To meet the HFC Bank's data protection obligations all account records are securely destroyed once an account has been closed for 6 years.

 

We have received legal agreements for the above accounts

however we still require further documentation that supports your claim that ppi was missold on the accounts in question."

 

But what I can't get my head round is the Ombudsman has stated that he needs to write to HFC Bank for more info,

yet at the same time they have told me quite categorically in writing that they have no records referring to these accounts

 

and say for instance

if they now state that they have to the ombudsman surely then that must be illegal to tell the customer they have not in writing

and withhold that information from the customer,

 

I mean to say what about all the thousands of customers who have been told the same thing that .

 

To meet the HFC Bank's data protection obligations all account records are securely destroyed once an account has been closed for 6 years

and the customer have no evidence of their own to prove otherwise,

they are not very likely to then take their cases to the ombudsman as they would think no proof,

bank has no record hence not got a leg to stand on so to speak.

 

Must have got away without paying out millions.

[dx100uk]

right i'm gonna state this

take it in the vain it is written.

it not a go at you.

 

you MUST and should have SAR'd them before you ever start a claim.

 

HFC and the FOS will take and use - the company line

 

we destroy data

 

we the FOS [assume] they don't have it - because legally you've not asked...big mistake

until you force their arm they'll walk all over you.

 

it is VERY WELL KNOWN that hfc employed 100's of shredder wagons across the country

to destroy everything they could when the PPI scandal broke long before they were fined

 

however, we've also found time and again

they DO have the info.

 

if you look at the replies HFC have sent and the bits regarding data.

they haven't actually said?

they DO NOT hold YOUR data

 

they have said

 

"To meet the HFC Bank's data protection obligations all account records are securely destroyed once an account has been closed for 6 years"

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

Also why would anyone in their right mind take out PPI if you were already covered through your works it would just be a complete waste of money.

 

Why would you take out PPI if you already had sick pay etc? Because PPI often provided much better benefits than most sick pay policies. Because with PPI, your sick pay could be used for other things (other expenses etc) whilst the insurance took care of the loan repayments.

 

There are a few reasons. Contrary to popular belief, PPI was a very useful product for a lot of people.

[dx100uk]

its worthy to note

 

that as with most PPI policies/limitations on PPI

HFC was the same.

 

you could only 'claim' for a maximum of 12mts

under very limited criteria.

 

but ofcouse you paid the PPI premium AND the interest it attracted EVERY month till the end of the loan

 

sometimes 60mts worth.

 

you could never ever get back more than what it cost you to have it.

 

nowhere near it.

 

just like Brighthouse and perfect homes and the like

 

the business model was designed upon it from the start

 

the average commission for staff who sold it was about £400 per policy

[the tinkerman]

Right dx I was under the impression no records mean’s no data!

 

But what if the FOS have actually asked them for data/records regarding these accounts as they could have done in my case,

 

can they lie to the FOS as well.

 

surely the FOS must have had cases with HFC were they have had data from HFC that is well and beyond the six year period

and surely the FOS would be wise to this sort of cover up.

 

That said I would though the agreements I have sent to them with the information on regarding the ppi and the stamp paid in full must stand for something.

 

Also if I had sent for a SAR what was to stop them saying this data been destroyed to

and legally how would you go about proving any different if that is what they said.

 

Tinks

[dx100uk]

the fos ask for a bit of specific data

HFC will either say they have or don't have that.

 

its not their bag to check that you have done or not the SAR

 

they wont question why or why not.

 

now if you had of done the SAR

 

and then it's obv to the FOS that HFC do have data

then they might well get upset.

 

its upto you to gather everything you can before a complaint goes to the FOS

not for them to check you have or do it for you.

 

 

these are the cards on my table ...that's how they deal with complaints.

 

 

and yes ofcourse they are well aware of what HFC are like - they fined them

then know it goes on too to this day.

 

you've only go to read a few HFC cases here like mine & IMS21's

 

as for providing data exists after they said it don't

that's a game of chess with hFC.

 

dx