Tweet
Firstly, thank you Amethyst for posting the draft text, which, coupled with responses to my questions from another forum, and suitable massaging of the text to suit my circumstances, certainly set me on the right path.
So, after almost a year since I set out to claim against the PPI policy that was wrongfully sold to me, I finally received payment from TWG Services Ltd. It was a long arduous journey.....
In a nutshell here is a largely abridged version of events:
1. BMW Financial Services tried to fob me off by stating (in writing) that the policy I was sold by BMW Park Lane (London) was not a BMW-branded policy, which (much) later turned out to be not true. BWM FS deliberately held back evidence of this fact, which only came to light when a FOS adjudicator questioned them and informed me!
My mistake was not sending a SAR before I first approached BMW FS with the complaint. However, this may not have mattered much since BMW were not regulated until Jan 2005, but my approach may have changed had I known that from the start and, thanks to the suggestions made on here and elsewhere, may have pursued the insurer much earlier.
2. Once BMW shrugged off responsibility, I then approached TWG Services Ltd, who I was told (by BMW) was insurer - London General Holdings Ltd, the insurer who underwrote the policy in April 1999, was renamed/rebranded as TWG Services Ltd. on 14 Jan 2005. What a coincidence!
3. I duly approached TWG Services Ltd, who didn't deny that they sold the policy, but firmly pushed back stating that they had provided all necessary information (collateral) for me to make an informed decision on whether or not PPI was suitable. As such, since I "opted" to take the policy up, they cannot uphold my complaint. Oh well.....this was approximately 2 months after I first made contact with BMW.
4. In October 2017 I lodged a formal complaint against TWG Services Ltd (with FOS), which turned out to be the most frustrating part of the exercise. My complaint was first passed between 3 or 4 adjudicators, and finally to an ombudsman - seems like they were playing 'pass the parcel' possibly due to the fact that my case was rather complex and I presented quite a compelling argument, circumstances as to why I thought PPI was miss-sold, and clear evidence to back it all up, including copies of employment contracts, earnings/income, insurance policies etc, all which clearly show that I had adequate cover at the time, and throughout the duration of the agreement (36 months).
5. They key success was to get London General Insurance Company Ltd to accept responsibility for the sale, which I was informed by the FOS. Note that TWG Services Ltd, London General Holdings Ltd and London General Insurance Company Ltd appear separate, but have the same registered address and are/were staffed by the same individuals. The twist is that London General Holdings Ltd became TWG Services Ltd on 14th Jan 2005, but London General Insurance Company Ltd has been regulated since July 1993. This is key to the outcome of the decision in my favour.
6. I had to labour the point that all three companies noted in item 5 above essentially are part of the same group (The Warranty Group), and were staffed by the same individuals (or at least those that I dealt with were one and the same), so were responsible for the mis-selling. In the end London General Insurance Company Ltd accepted responsibility.
7. Not withstanding the above, my next battle was with one particular adjudicator, who I firmly believe had the insurer's and BMW's interests at heart as he failed to acknowledge the evidence I presented, and refused to change his decision even after point out the errors of his judgement! At that point I asked for the case to be submitted to the Financial Ombudsman for a final decision, who reviewed the case and overturned the their own adjudicator's decision. Success!!
8. The decision went in my favour - the ombundsman agreed with me, and acknolwdged that since BMW Financial Services and BMW Park Lane were not regulated at the time, the insurer was liable, and since London General Insurance Company Ltd had accepted responsiblity for the sale, they should be liable, which is exactly what I wanted.
9. So to end it all, and to prove that they were one and the same company, a couple of weeks ago I received a cheque from TWG Services Ltd stating the following:
"We would like to apologies for any inconvenience or distress caused by this situation and would like to assure you of our best intentions at all times"
Their initial response was very different!
I would be happy to share my experiences of dealing with this situation with anyone who needs help in battling it out with any of the organisations noted above. However, before doing anything, first send a SAR requesting everything the company concerned holds about you and your dealings with that company and any information that they may have passed on to other companies.
So, after almost a year since I set out to claim against the PPI policy that was wrongfully sold to me, I finally received payment from TWG Services Ltd. It was a long arduous journey.....
In a nutshell here is a largely abridged version of events:
1. BMW Financial Services tried to fob me off by stating (in writing) that the policy I was sold by BMW Park Lane (London) was not a BMW-branded policy, which (much) later turned out to be not true. BWM FS deliberately held back evidence of this fact, which only came to light when a FOS adjudicator questioned them and informed me!
My mistake was not sending a SAR before I first approached BMW FS with the complaint. However, this may not have mattered much since BMW were not regulated until Jan 2005, but my approach may have changed had I known that from the start and, thanks to the suggestions made on here and elsewhere, may have pursued the insurer much earlier.
2. Once BMW shrugged off responsibility, I then approached TWG Services Ltd, who I was told (by BMW) was insurer - London General Holdings Ltd, the insurer who underwrote the policy in April 1999, was renamed/rebranded as TWG Services Ltd. on 14 Jan 2005. What a coincidence!
3. I duly approached TWG Services Ltd, who didn't deny that they sold the policy, but firmly pushed back stating that they had provided all necessary information (collateral) for me to make an informed decision on whether or not PPI was suitable. As such, since I "opted" to take the policy up, they cannot uphold my complaint. Oh well.....this was approximately 2 months after I first made contact with BMW.
4. In October 2017 I lodged a formal complaint against TWG Services Ltd (with FOS), which turned out to be the most frustrating part of the exercise. My complaint was first passed between 3 or 4 adjudicators, and finally to an ombudsman - seems like they were playing 'pass the parcel' possibly due to the fact that my case was rather complex and I presented quite a compelling argument, circumstances as to why I thought PPI was miss-sold, and clear evidence to back it all up, including copies of employment contracts, earnings/income, insurance policies etc, all which clearly show that I had adequate cover at the time, and throughout the duration of the agreement (36 months).
5. They key success was to get London General Insurance Company Ltd to accept responsibility for the sale, which I was informed by the FOS. Note that TWG Services Ltd, London General Holdings Ltd and London General Insurance Company Ltd appear separate, but have the same registered address and are/were staffed by the same individuals. The twist is that London General Holdings Ltd became TWG Services Ltd on 14th Jan 2005, but London General Insurance Company Ltd has been regulated since July 1993. This is key to the outcome of the decision in my favour.
6. I had to labour the point that all three companies noted in item 5 above essentially are part of the same group (The Warranty Group), and were staffed by the same individuals (or at least those that I dealt with were one and the same), so were responsible for the mis-selling. In the end London General Insurance Company Ltd accepted responsibility.
7. Not withstanding the above, my next battle was with one particular adjudicator, who I firmly believe had the insurer's and BMW's interests at heart as he failed to acknowledge the evidence I presented, and refused to change his decision even after point out the errors of his judgement! At that point I asked for the case to be submitted to the Financial Ombudsman for a final decision, who reviewed the case and overturned the their own adjudicator's decision. Success!!
8. The decision went in my favour - the ombundsman agreed with me, and acknolwdged that since BMW Financial Services and BMW Park Lane were not regulated at the time, the insurer was liable, and since London General Insurance Company Ltd had accepted responsiblity for the sale, they should be liable, which is exactly what I wanted.
9. So to end it all, and to prove that they were one and the same company, a couple of weeks ago I received a cheque from TWG Services Ltd stating the following:
"We would like to apologies for any inconvenience or distress caused by this situation and would like to assure you of our best intentions at all times"
Their initial response was very different!
I would be happy to share my experiences of dealing with this situation with anyone who needs help in battling it out with any of the organisations noted above. However, before doing anything, first send a SAR requesting everything the company concerned holds about you and your dealings with that company and any information that they may have passed on to other companies.
Comment