Jump to content

Where do I go from here?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2866 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

I financed a Chrysler Voyager in 2001 from Garage A with the last payment due in 2004.


I also took out Chrysler Jeep Assurance with the Contract purchase for the car called

Chrysler Creditor Protection Insurance for 36 months at £127.61 per month[£4593.96]


At the bottom of the page and at the top is the words Chrysler Jeep Finance.


As a self employed person there is little doubt that this is PPI, and I should be entitled to the sum paid refunded plus interest.


Initially I went after Garage A who referred me to Chrysler, who insisted it was nothing to do with them, and referred me to the Financial Ombudsman.


Continuing my research I now discover that the underwriters for this policy are London General Insurance Company

who say it is nothing to do with them and referred me to the Financial Ombudsman


Now follows the recent communication from the Ombudsman


When we spoke, I explained that we are still in the process of trying to establish whether we can hold the underwriter

London General Insurance Company Limited (“LGIC”) responsible for your complaint.



I understand your point that the underwriter, LGIC should accept responsibility for the business that was selling it’s policy to you.

However, we are restricted in that we can only hold LGIC responsible if it is established that Garage A was acting as an agent of LGIC.

This is not something that I have any power to change, it is a question of how far our legal powers stretch.


There are two scenarios that would mean we could look at your complaint against LGIC.

We could either establish that Garage A was acting directly as an agent of LGIC,

which from looking at your complaint seems unlikely to have been the case.



Alternatively, we could establish that Garage A was acting as an agent of the lender Chrysler Jeep Finance (“CJF”),

which in turn was acting as an agent of LGIC.



As explained on the phone, I contacted the lender yesterday to gather information that should help me to establish

whether this was the case, and whether ultimately we are able to take your complaint any further.


Although it is clear that the seller, lender and underwriter had a commercial relationship with one another,

this does not necessarily mean that any of the businesses had an agency relationship to one another.

So at this stage, it remains unclear whether your complaint is one that we can consider.


Because of this, I want to be transparent.

I cannot confirm yet whether we will be able to take your complaint any further,

but from looking at your complaint as it stands I think it unlikely that we will be able to hold LGIC responsible.



I say this because you policy was sold to you by a car dealership,

and from our experience it is unusual for independent car dealerships to be acting as agents of lenders.



Again, I will not be able to confirm this until I receive the information I need back from the lender,

but I want to make you aware of what I think is likely to happen so that you can make an informed decision about what you want to do next.


My most recent phone call gave me no encouragement at all[yesterday]


I do know that Garage A had an agency for Chrysler cars at that time,

because they then lost it to another local garage by the time I came to replace the Chrysler.


HELP!!! Should I take this to the small claims court, and if so, who?




Any advice at this stage would be welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

diff one



and at the end of the day



you'd have to prove if they were cover by GISC or one of the other schemes

and then you'll have the issue of who enforces it

as the FOS cant enforce before I think 2004 anyway.



court could be fun

it is then on you to prove there were guideline they should have adhered too.



and who is your target



ok yes self employment probably rules out it should ever been sold

but that's the only sure bit so far




please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites


  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...