Ocean/IGroup/GE money - PPI REclaim - who's my Target?

[jotty]

We got the loan online from Ocean Finance, who where brokers for Igroup loan company. At the time I didn't realise that Ocean where brokers, naive I know, and they dealt with everything.

Igroup got bought out by GE money not sure when, hence the reason why I am after them.

 

My problem appears to be that Ocean Finance (Alabastor) went bust in 2004, and has since returned under different owners. My argument remains that all money was paid by me to Igroup including the PPI fee and I can't understand how or why they are not still liable.

 

The FSCS say they cannot help as it was taken out before they began to legislate, likewise the FCA.

 

I will try the FOS but dont hold up much hope for the same reasons.

[Hortz]

Hortz with all due respect that is utter bollocks, and the other thousands of souls who where duped into taking out PPI are wrong also I suppose.

 

In my case they conned us into taking out insurance at a time when we where desperate for a loan, and in doing so knew full well that I wasn't likely to ever claim. And charged me £4000, yes £4000 for the privelge.

 

BTW which loan company do you, troll, sorry work for ?

 

No it is not utter bollocks. It is quite simply the truth, though I appreciate you probably don't want to hear it. In your post of 28 September you stated that from memory you did use Ocean as a broker. Which means that if anyone missold you PPI it was them and not GE Money. Therefore, GE are quite right to tell you it is not their problem.

 

The fact that it is not what you want to hear doesn't make it trolling. You are quite simply complaining to a party who has not done anything wrong.

[Hortz]

Thats almost exact word for word the reply I had from GE money, how strange is that ? mmmmmm

 

That's because it is the correct one according to the law and anyone who knows anything about the matter could tell you it is correct. From the looks of your subsequent posts, you have also since been told by the FCA and FOS that it is correct.

[jotty]

Hortz my friend you clearly want to enter into some discussion with me about the rights and wrongs of my issues with certain lenders. As this is a discussion forum I accept you right to comment but you have to accept that I find your postings strange to say he least, and are clearly from the book of GE excuses.

 

My advice would be next time you decide to enter into a battle of wits with someone , dont go in with only half of them to hand.

 

But thanks again for your valued and qualified advice, my day is now complete having read them.

[Hortz]

Hortz my friend you clearly want to enter into some discussion with me about the rights and wrongs of my issues with certain lenders. As this is a discussion forum I accept you right to comment but you have to accept that I find your postings strange to say he least, and are clearly from the book of GE excuses.

 

My advice would be next time you decide to enter into a battle of wits with someone , dont go in with only half of them to hand.

 

But thanks again for your valued and qualified advice, my day is now complete having read them.

 

 

I've told you why you won't get anywhere with this, If you want to carry on falsely accusing one company of the alleged wrongdoings of another then go for it. You will be wasting your own time. I won't be wasting any more of mine with you as you clearly live on your own planet and want to bury your head in the sand without regards to the facts.

Edited October 10, 2014 by ims21

[Poppy99]

No it is not utter bollocks. It is quite simply the truth, though I appreciate you probably don't want to hear it. In your post of 28 September you stated that from memory you did use Ocean as a broker. Which means that if anyone missold you PPI it was them and not GE Money. Therefore, GE are quite right to tell you it is not their problem.

 

The fact that it is not what you want to hear doesn't make it trolling. You are quite simply complaining to a party who has not done anything wrong.

 

Ever heard of the law of agency? It IS GE's problem, they just don't want to admit it. They have ultimate responsibility for the broker that was mis-selling on their behalf.

[dx100uk]

Consumer Credit Act Section 56. refers...

— (1) In this Act “antecedent negotiations ” means any negotiations with the debtor or hirer—

(a) conducted by the creditor or owner in relation to the making of any regulated agreement, or

(b) conducted by a credit-broker in relation to goods sold or proposed to be sold by the credit-broker to the creditor before forming the subject-matter of a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement within section 12(a), or

© conducted by the supplier in relation to a transaction financed or proposed to be financed by a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement and “negotiator ” means the person by whom negotiations are so conducted with the debtor or hirer.

[jotty]

Thanks Poppy, I will take a look

[jotty]

Thanks dx, has anyone ever tried this route that you are aware of as I am tempted to write back to them using this argument, and I will amend my complaint to the FOS with this.

[jotty]

 

I've told you why you won't get anywhere with this, If you want to carry on falsely accusing one company of the alleged wrongdoings of another then go for it. You will be wasting your own time. I won't be wasting any more of mine with you as you clearly live on your own planet and want to bury your head in the sand without regards to the facts.

 

Thanks Hortz for your kind words and sound advice, look forward to your replies on the usual GE headed paper when they arrive.

 

Dear oh deary me.

Edited October 10, 2014 by ims21

[Hortz]

Ever heard of the law of agency? It IS GE's problem, they just don't want to admit it. They have ultimate responsibility for the broker that was mis-selling on their behalf.

 

Yeah, but most brokers are not acting as the agent of the lender but of the customer. They are engaged to find the best deal from the whole market for the customer. This has been tried at FOS any number of times (on cases they do have jurisdiction over) and the response is nearly always they can't establish a relationship between the lender and the broker.

 

That's before we even start with the fact that this is not a legal matter, but is being handled as a regulated complaint, i.e that the firm acted in contravention of the rules or spirit of the regulatory system. Unfortunately for the OP, the regulatory system as regards general insurance did not exist at the time. Hence the lack of access to FOS or the FSCS.

 

If the OP wishes to try and turn it into a legal issue and issue a letter before action then that is up to him. However, I would suggest he will need something a bit more substantial than verbal allegations of what was said to him which are impossible to prove.

[theoldrouge]

jotty, do you have any details of the policy or the name of the policy underwriters?

[jotty]

jotty, do you have any details of the policy or the name of the policy underwriters?

 

No details at all. and to be honest I dont recall any paperwork. Seems funny I have the original copy of the loan docs but nothing to do with PPI which confirms that we had nothing. All I can see are the entries on the agreement which contain the PPI bit.

 

I have spoken to the FCA, and they did say that there will be another announcement about PPI miss selling which would put these companies even further on the back foot. The lady I spoke to wouldn't go any further but was happy to look into all my issues with GE.

 

Suppose its another waiting game, but the interest is still rising.

[jotty]

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I am no closer to being successful, I am told that its not a matter for the fscs and as stated above the fos still maintain its before they decided to regulate.

 

What I cant understand is if the loan was taken out 2004, and repaid in 2007 why is it not within the time scale. I am sure people have claimed back to mid 90's or have I read this wrong ?

 

Any advice updates would be welcome please.

[maroondevo52]

Hi jotty,

 

I had three PPI claims with a large company, one from 2005 and two from 2004, they paid out on my loan from 2005 as luckily I had kept all the paperwork for the three loans.

 

They told me on a number of occasions there was no way they would pay out on the loans from 2004, they acknowledge that they brokered the finance and associated insurance to me but as their records indicate the sale was conducted in 2004 which is prior to the regulation of general insurance products by the Financial Conduct Authority which commenced on the 14 January 2005.

 

As the sale took place in an environment which was not regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and more than six years ago they did not intend to respond in any further detail regarding this matter.

 

I let it rest for about a year but it continued to stick in my head that they were wrong and should not get away with it.

 

I wrote to their CEO and he strung me along for 6 months saying, the situation regarding PPI sales conducted prior to regulation is complex and we are currently in the process of reviewing our position on this matter and are taking further legal advise and that he would get in touch with me, which he never did.

 

I then issued a LBA telling them I would take them to the Sheriff Court in Scotland for the two loans from 2004.

 

They replied that they had made a mistake with the 'smaller' loan when they rejected my claim and would now be willing to pay me out on that one.

 

Regarding the larger loan, they said with regard to taking your claim to the courts, it is in our opinion, and that of our legal advisers, that your claim is statute barred and in the event that you issue proceedings, we will seek to have them struck out at the earliest opportunity and recover any costs necessarily incurred as a result of doing so from you.

 

Please also note that in the event that you choose to proceed with court action in respect of this complaint, we do not consider the matter one which is appropriate for the small claims Court due to the sums involved. It is our view that any litigation in relation to this matter should be persued via the Ordinary Cause procedure.

 

The procedure can be quite complex and as such we would strongly recommend that you seek independent legal advice prior to taking any further action in this regard.

 

I waited for them to pay me for the 'smaller' loan which they did then I issued a Summary Cause claim against them at the Sheriff Court for the larger one, about ten days later I was paid in full without the need to go to court.

[Popey63]

Ever heard of the law of agency? It IS GE's problem, they just don't want to admit it. They have ultimate responsibility for the broker that was mis-selling on their behalf.

 

We were not even told that the ppi side of things was being farmed out, the fact is that ge money said we had to have ppi, and that they didn't give us the choice of finding our own ppi cover , they then put us with a different company without telling us, we paid the premium every month, but have since found out the company went bust, If this is the case why were we not told, and where has the money been going ?