Tweet
A quick run down of claim.
A loan was taken and PPI was added as " it would help the application of the loan". The successful 'point of sale' application took place on 31st July 2002. The loan runs for 5 years until July 2007.
This claim was started at the end 2006 once the media had reported the possible miss-selling of PPI policies.
HSBC have failed on several occasion to supply a copy of the recorded 'point of sale' telephone conversation to put this matter to rest. It is of our opinion that O/H was misled into taking out the PPI policy.
A meeting between O/H and HSBC was conducted the day after the application, for the signing of documents. O/H mental state was that the loan was agreed and didn't want to do anything to jeopardies this due to our then, financial situation.
Documents were signed and the loan went ahead. Why did we not cancel within the 30 days allowed? Well why didn't she indeed, the cancellation of the PPI was not something that was at the forfront of our mind, as we were now out of a financially sticky hole. plus somewhere in the reports attached , cant remember of the top of my head which one, it mentions that, statistically, only a very small percentage actually cancel the policy within the 30 day period
Here's the statement of evidence:
1. The claimant had a credit agreement (40xxxx xxxxxx)(Doc F ) since 31st July 2002 with the defendant ( HSBC Bank) conducted on their standard terms and conditions. During the ‘point of sale’ telephone application of the said credit agreement, the sales representative acting for the defendant ( HSBC Bank) it is alleged by the claimant, that said representative misled the claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit bargain during the ‘point of sale’.
2. The claimant contends that under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, (Doc H), the claimant was misled and false information was given during the successful telephone application of the credit bargain above. Therefore the creditor is equally liable for such claim.
3. The successful telephone application, was the ‘point of sale’ in which the claimant believes she was mislead into taking the Payment Protection Insurance. No option was given to the claimant, during the ‘point of sale’, as to take out the principle loan amount without the said insurance. A quote for the said loan, was never offered to the claimant without the Insurance premium, therefore the claimant believes she was pressured into taking out the insurance, as to secure the successful completion of the loan application. The claimant believes that her state of mind is backed by the Office Of Fair Trading report dated February 2007, entitled ‘Payment Protection Insurance the OFT’s reasons for making a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission’. See document 2. Section 5.31 states:
.....‘Our view is that providing information at such a late stage will typically be too late, as at that time, to all intents and purposes, the consumer has been 'captured' possibly having been credit checked and approved for a loan, and hence may be reluctant to refuse the offering of PPI because of a perceived obligation to carry the process through. It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that the timing of information provision, and the way in which it is presented, is likely to play an important role in consumers' choices.’........
4. The claimant has requested proof of the ‘point of sale’ technique used by the defendant but the defendant has been unable to provide this proof to the claimant.
5. The claimant contends that the sales tactics used during the ‘point of sale’ had convinced the claimant that ‘without’ the Payment Protection Insurance, the application for the principle loan would ‘not’ have been successful, again, this seems to be backed up by the OFT in section 5.51, document F, of the above OFT report. It states:
.....’A particularly worrying finding was that nearly a third (30 per cent) of consumers in our survey who went on to buy PPI assumed, were told, or were given the impression by the distributor that taking out the PPI would help the application for credit. The FSA's rules require firms to treat consumers fairly and to communicate information in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. It is difficult to see how giving such impressions would be consistent with these rules. Whilst the number who were told by the supplier was small it is disturbing that something about the way the market is operating leads consumers to make these kinds of assumptions. We believe that there is an onus on lenders to make clear that that is not the case; and that failure to do so is a feature adversely affecting competition.’......
The claimant believes the defendant took advantage of the claimant’s financial situation to secure the sale. The claimant has requested a copy of the telephone conversation (point of sale) but the defendant has been unable to comply. The sale of this insurance, effectively added an extra £1297.49 to the £4000 loan.
6. The above OFT report also seems to concentrate on the ‘POS (point of sale) Advantage’ a supplier has over conventional insurance agents. This is noted in section 5.10 of document F, which states:
....’On average our business survey showed that 91 per cent of PPI policies are sold at the POS of the credit product being insured. Distributors who we spoke to indicated that it is common for 100 per cent of unsecured loan PPI policies to be sold at POS. Credit card PPI is least likely to be sold at POS (on average only 64 per cent of sales), but even there PPI tends to be sold via a follow-up exercise such as when the card is
activated, which is directly linked to the sales process. We only came across one stand alone provider who sold stand alone credit card PPI cover and they indicated that the number of policies sold was small.’......
The importance of POS Advantage is questioned in section 5.14 of Document F, which states:
.....’A few of the responses to our consultation have stressed the importance of the POS sales opportunity, stating that without it most customers would ignore the need for PPI or seek alternative insurance from
elsewhere. We note this point but we remain concerned that consumers come to the POS without any prior consideration of the need for or the cost of PPI. This is a key feature which restricts competition in this
sector. Furthermore, given the way the market currently operates, we are not convinced that consumers would find it easy to seek alternative insurance elsewhere.’......
The claimant believes and no withstanding the defendants defence, that the sale of such insurance products, create a high profit margin for the creditors. Therefore the Point of Sale technique used by many creditors is an effective one to generate sales within the Payment Protection Insurance sector. This seems to be backed up by the findings of the OFT in sections 5.64 – 5.73, of Document F, they seem to show the relationship between the decrease of claims made and the high commissions gained by distributors of said insurance. It is stated in the Financial Services Authority report, titled The Sale of Payment Protection Insurance – results of thematic work, (Doc 1), section 4, Sales Practices. This section shows the findings of various area’s including- Risk of inappropriate sales - Statement of demands and needs – Inducement and sales targets as well as Sales techniques, to name a few. The claimant would like to point out that the inducement and sales targets do play a role in the sale of PPI in a number of firms visited for the said report. Therefore, it is the claimants belief, that for an investigation to be sanctioned by the FSA, the regulatory body must have had reason to do this. For this reason, a copy of either the transcript or a copy of the recording was requested from the defendant to clarify this issue, who has yet to produce this.
7. Although the said insurance policy (Doc F) commenced in July of the year 2002 and runs for a 5 year period, the claimant was only made aware of the possible miss-selling techniques of Protection Insurance by financial organisations in December 2006 because of the media attention and the articles by the Office of Fair Trading and the recent submission to the Competitions Commission in the Miss-selling of these types of policies. Upon this information, an initial request for investigation and refund of paid premium from the claimant was sent to the defendant dated 4th Jan 2007. The defendant declined to refund the paid premium and their investigation did not offer any proof of the sale technique used at the ‘point of sale’.
8. The written notice dated 4th Jan 2007 sent to the defendants also included an instruction to cancel the protection insurance due to the belief of the claimant that the said insurance was miss-sold at ‘point of sale’. The defendant has not cancelled the collection of this payment for the said insurance and continues to present this to Miss J Burton’s account, which is currently inactive, therefore incurring penalty charges.
9. Under the FSA guide, Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB), Rule 5 states that ‘ Records must be kept by insurer’, Document D. The claimant believes whether the defendant is the distributor or the insurer, all records should be kept. See Doc I
10. The claimant is aware of the FSA Handbook, in particular the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls (SYSC) SYSC 3.2.20 Records. In particular the general principle that records should be retained for as long as is relevant for the purposes. See Document E. The claimant believes all information regarding the sale and administration of the said policy should be kept for the term of the policy, this being a minimum period. See Doc J
11. Notwithstanding the defence, the claimant respectably requests the court, to put proof to the defendants of the said ‘point of sale’ telephone recording or transcript.
12. The claimant reserves the right to claim the contractual interest charged on the alleged miss-sold payment protection insurance, alternatively under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such a rate and for such period as the Court shall deem fit.
I've spoken in depth and there is no way she wants to go to court, she very nervous person, she a letter to the courts is needed.
All bundles and information sent, court date 15th October 2007 @ 2pm
Sale of PPI being DOC 1
PPI Competition Commission being DOC 2
A loan was taken and PPI was added as " it would help the application of the loan". The successful 'point of sale' application took place on 31st July 2002. The loan runs for 5 years until July 2007.
This claim was started at the end 2006 once the media had reported the possible miss-selling of PPI policies.
HSBC have failed on several occasion to supply a copy of the recorded 'point of sale' telephone conversation to put this matter to rest. It is of our opinion that O/H was misled into taking out the PPI policy.
A meeting between O/H and HSBC was conducted the day after the application, for the signing of documents. O/H mental state was that the loan was agreed and didn't want to do anything to jeopardies this due to our then, financial situation.
Documents were signed and the loan went ahead. Why did we not cancel within the 30 days allowed? Well why didn't she indeed, the cancellation of the PPI was not something that was at the forfront of our mind, as we were now out of a financially sticky hole. plus somewhere in the reports attached , cant remember of the top of my head which one, it mentions that, statistically, only a very small percentage actually cancel the policy within the 30 day period
Here's the statement of evidence:
1. The claimant had a credit agreement (40xxxx xxxxxx)(Doc F ) since 31st July 2002 with the defendant ( HSBC Bank) conducted on their standard terms and conditions. During the ‘point of sale’ telephone application of the said credit agreement, the sales representative acting for the defendant ( HSBC Bank) it is alleged by the claimant, that said representative misled the claimant into procuring Payment Protection Insurance as part of the overall credit bargain during the ‘point of sale’.
2. The claimant contends that under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, (Doc H), the claimant was misled and false information was given during the successful telephone application of the credit bargain above. Therefore the creditor is equally liable for such claim.
3. The successful telephone application, was the ‘point of sale’ in which the claimant believes she was mislead into taking the Payment Protection Insurance. No option was given to the claimant, during the ‘point of sale’, as to take out the principle loan amount without the said insurance. A quote for the said loan, was never offered to the claimant without the Insurance premium, therefore the claimant believes she was pressured into taking out the insurance, as to secure the successful completion of the loan application. The claimant believes that her state of mind is backed by the Office Of Fair Trading report dated February 2007, entitled ‘Payment Protection Insurance the OFT’s reasons for making a market investigation reference to the Competition Commission’. See document 2. Section 5.31 states:
.....‘Our view is that providing information at such a late stage will typically be too late, as at that time, to all intents and purposes, the consumer has been 'captured' possibly having been credit checked and approved for a loan, and hence may be reluctant to refuse the offering of PPI because of a perceived obligation to carry the process through. It is not difficult to reach the conclusion that the timing of information provision, and the way in which it is presented, is likely to play an important role in consumers' choices.’........
4. The claimant has requested proof of the ‘point of sale’ technique used by the defendant but the defendant has been unable to provide this proof to the claimant.
5. The claimant contends that the sales tactics used during the ‘point of sale’ had convinced the claimant that ‘without’ the Payment Protection Insurance, the application for the principle loan would ‘not’ have been successful, again, this seems to be backed up by the OFT in section 5.51, document F, of the above OFT report. It states:
.....’A particularly worrying finding was that nearly a third (30 per cent) of consumers in our survey who went on to buy PPI assumed, were told, or were given the impression by the distributor that taking out the PPI would help the application for credit. The FSA's rules require firms to treat consumers fairly and to communicate information in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. It is difficult to see how giving such impressions would be consistent with these rules. Whilst the number who were told by the supplier was small it is disturbing that something about the way the market is operating leads consumers to make these kinds of assumptions. We believe that there is an onus on lenders to make clear that that is not the case; and that failure to do so is a feature adversely affecting competition.’......
The claimant believes the defendant took advantage of the claimant’s financial situation to secure the sale. The claimant has requested a copy of the telephone conversation (point of sale) but the defendant has been unable to comply. The sale of this insurance, effectively added an extra £1297.49 to the £4000 loan.
6. The above OFT report also seems to concentrate on the ‘POS (point of sale) Advantage’ a supplier has over conventional insurance agents. This is noted in section 5.10 of document F, which states:
....’On average our business survey showed that 91 per cent of PPI policies are sold at the POS of the credit product being insured. Distributors who we spoke to indicated that it is common for 100 per cent of unsecured loan PPI policies to be sold at POS. Credit card PPI is least likely to be sold at POS (on average only 64 per cent of sales), but even there PPI tends to be sold via a follow-up exercise such as when the card is
activated, which is directly linked to the sales process. We only came across one stand alone provider who sold stand alone credit card PPI cover and they indicated that the number of policies sold was small.’......
The importance of POS Advantage is questioned in section 5.14 of Document F, which states:
.....’A few of the responses to our consultation have stressed the importance of the POS sales opportunity, stating that without it most customers would ignore the need for PPI or seek alternative insurance from
elsewhere. We note this point but we remain concerned that consumers come to the POS without any prior consideration of the need for or the cost of PPI. This is a key feature which restricts competition in this
sector. Furthermore, given the way the market currently operates, we are not convinced that consumers would find it easy to seek alternative insurance elsewhere.’......
The claimant believes and no withstanding the defendants defence, that the sale of such insurance products, create a high profit margin for the creditors. Therefore the Point of Sale technique used by many creditors is an effective one to generate sales within the Payment Protection Insurance sector. This seems to be backed up by the findings of the OFT in sections 5.64 – 5.73, of Document F, they seem to show the relationship between the decrease of claims made and the high commissions gained by distributors of said insurance. It is stated in the Financial Services Authority report, titled The Sale of Payment Protection Insurance – results of thematic work, (Doc 1), section 4, Sales Practices. This section shows the findings of various area’s including- Risk of inappropriate sales - Statement of demands and needs – Inducement and sales targets as well as Sales techniques, to name a few. The claimant would like to point out that the inducement and sales targets do play a role in the sale of PPI in a number of firms visited for the said report. Therefore, it is the claimants belief, that for an investigation to be sanctioned by the FSA, the regulatory body must have had reason to do this. For this reason, a copy of either the transcript or a copy of the recording was requested from the defendant to clarify this issue, who has yet to produce this.
7. Although the said insurance policy (Doc F) commenced in July of the year 2002 and runs for a 5 year period, the claimant was only made aware of the possible miss-selling techniques of Protection Insurance by financial organisations in December 2006 because of the media attention and the articles by the Office of Fair Trading and the recent submission to the Competitions Commission in the Miss-selling of these types of policies. Upon this information, an initial request for investigation and refund of paid premium from the claimant was sent to the defendant dated 4th Jan 2007. The defendant declined to refund the paid premium and their investigation did not offer any proof of the sale technique used at the ‘point of sale’.
8. The written notice dated 4th Jan 2007 sent to the defendants also included an instruction to cancel the protection insurance due to the belief of the claimant that the said insurance was miss-sold at ‘point of sale’. The defendant has not cancelled the collection of this payment for the said insurance and continues to present this to Miss J Burton’s account, which is currently inactive, therefore incurring penalty charges.
9. Under the FSA guide, Insurance Conduct of Business Rules (ICOB), Rule 5 states that ‘ Records must be kept by insurer’, Document D. The claimant believes whether the defendant is the distributor or the insurer, all records should be kept. See Doc I
10. The claimant is aware of the FSA Handbook, in particular the Senior Management Arrangements, Systems and Controls (SYSC) SYSC 3.2.20 Records. In particular the general principle that records should be retained for as long as is relevant for the purposes. See Document E. The claimant believes all information regarding the sale and administration of the said policy should be kept for the term of the policy, this being a minimum period. See Doc J
11. Notwithstanding the defence, the claimant respectably requests the court, to put proof to the defendants of the said ‘point of sale’ telephone recording or transcript.
12. The claimant reserves the right to claim the contractual interest charged on the alleged miss-sold payment protection insurance, alternatively under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at such a rate and for such period as the Court shall deem fit.
I've spoken in depth and there is no way she wants to go to court, she very nervous person, she a letter to the courts is needed.
All bundles and information sent, court date 15th October 2007 @ 2pm
Sale of PPI being DOC 1
PPI Competition Commission being DOC 2
Comment