Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Some further info TBD


1 Click Homeloans limited is listed (without the limited) as a trading name of Click FInance on the OFT licence register

Trading Name(s) (Current):

1 Click Finance
1 Click Home Loans
1 Click Loans
Click Finance
Debt Doctors
Final Payment
Immediate Loan Applications
One Click Finance
One Click Loans
Rocket Loans
Surrey Loans
World of Loans


http://bizzy.co.uk/uk/04263274/1-click-home-loans

Company number: 04263274

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Before receiving the letter from Endeavour as posted above in regards of HFC's involvement, there is also a letter prior to that as well, here below, as well as Click paperwork in relation of contacting the employer/HR dept etc etc.....

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

TBD

Just a quickie, but going back to the PPI side of it, does that mean that this is the reason why PPI was not added on the Click Application form - until later on into the process of the loan?
Because there is still a question mark really on who added the PPI?

Cheers.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Where I think the problem is Di, the adjudicator probably hasn't picked this up because he doesn't know exactly how credit markets work or their complexities.

As you've stated in your previous post - an employment reference was also sent to your hubbys employer on Click paperwork - they were the packager and this gives us more proof that they were acting as an agent of EPF.

A standard broker would not be writing to employers for references, nor would they be instructing valuation reports - this is the lenders responsibility. Click have done it because they're acting on behalf of the lender.

What I would do now Di is sit tight and wait for the Adjudicator to respond to you, because he said he would do so in the next couple of days. It'll be interesting to see what he's got to say, but I would brace yourself for a letter from him stating he doesn't think HFC are liable and they've got no information to prove that they were and that he's sorry blah, blah, blah. If he's got half a brain, he's not going to be happy when he finds out that Click were acting as EPF's agent in the middle of all this, because EPF would have been given ample opportunity to disclose this to the FOS.

I'd then call the Chelsea first thing in the morning and ask them for information about your mortgage (hopefully, we won't have to do a SAR and they'll play ball). What you need to ask them is in 2004 a BSQ (they'll know what this is), or a mortgage reference was sent to them and at the same time a request for authority for a second charge was applied for. They might not have the details of the mortgage reference but I think they'll have the second charge request on file because it would have been important for them to note this as they were the first charge holders. The question you want answering is - who sent them the requests (it's going to be Click).

This gives us yet more evidence that Click were acting as an agent and then we can go back to the Adjudicator with the findings and establish clear links to prove an Agent & Principal relationship. I'm more than happy to sort out a letter for you Di to send to him and I'll also put in there where he's got to look to find the evidence just in case he hasn't got a clue.

My personal opinion is with what I've seen already and the fact that your hubby's HR department has said a reference was requested by Click - Hamilton are on the hook for this one and I don't think they'll be able to get out of it.

I know it's confusing with the HFC connection, but I think they're going to have an excuse for the paperwork and I don't think they'll be found liable - but Hamilton will be.

Best wishes,

TBD.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Morning TDS,

I think I know where the problem is with this one - have you got a thread so I can have a read through it, or can you give me a brief summary of whats happened?

TBD.

Thank you TBD

I am starting to get my head round this now.

And I have been doing more digging on this where it all connects up, but as you said the Adjudicator hasn't exactly picked up on this but soon will.

I am expecting the letter you mentioned in regards of HFC, and from there will say I think we should open the door to Hamilton yet again since finding out more information on the involvement of Click role etc etc.
I just hope he goes along with it, and realise the difference in these roles of these middlemen.

Hopefully I should receive the letter in the post this week, think I will ask him to email it to me as a quicker method, he has done before. Maybe from here all further info will now be forwarded to the ombudsman where he or she can see light through this.

Will contact Chelsea tomorrow and start sorting all the info our, employment ref and so on.

Thank you. x

[The_Big_Dog]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

I think I should put some details together for the adjudicator now as well, but they obviously not thought of "mortgage packagers" the middlemen I suppose, and they know EPF were the lender and wondered if they have already asked them for paperwork which will confirm this.

Where I think the problem is Di, the adjudicator probably hasn't picked this up because he doesn't know exactly how credit markets work or their complexities.

As you've stated in your previous post - an employment reference was also sent to your hubbys employer on Click paperwork - they were the packager and this gives us more proof that they were acting as an agent of EPF.

A standard broker would not be writing to employers for references, nor would they be instructing valuation reports - this is the lenders responsibility. Click have done it because they're acting on behalf of the lender.

What I would do now Di is sit tight and wait for the Adjudicator to respond to you, because he said he would do so in the next couple of days. It'll be interesting to see what he's got to say, but I would brace yourself for a letter from him stating he doesn't think HFC are liable and they've got no information to prove that they were and that he's sorry blah, blah, blah. If he's got half a brain, he's not going to be happy when he finds out that Click were acting as EPF's agent in the middle of all this, because EPF would have been given ample opportunity to disclose this to the FOS.

I'd then call the Chelsea first thing in the morning and ask them for information about your mortgage (hopefully, we won't have to do a SAR and they'll play ball). What you need to ask them is in 2004 a BSQ (they'll know what this is), or a mortgage reference was sent to them and at the same time a request for authority for a second charge was applied for. They might not have the details of the mortgage reference but I think they'll have the second charge request on file because it would have been important for them to note this as they were the first charge holders. The question you want answering is - who sent them the requests (it's going to be Click).

This gives us yet more evidence that Click were acting as an agent and then we can go back to the Adjudicator with the findings and establish clear links to prove an Agent & Principal relationship. I'm more than happy to sort out a letter for you Di to send to him and I'll also put in there where he's got to look to find the evidence just in case he hasn't got a clue.

My personal opinion is with what I've seen already and the fact that your hubby's HR department has said a reference was requested by Click - Hamilton are on the hook for this one and I don't think they'll be able to get out of it.

I know it's confusing with the HFC connection, but I think they're going to have an excuse for the paperwork and I don't think they'll be found liable - but Hamilton will be.

Best wishes,

TBD.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

HFC originally provided the card. they are, I recall, owned by HSBC? Marbles have said that HSBC sold the PPI "so go to them" sort of message. Next I know HFC have written saying "go to Marbles." So the FOS can deal with it since clearly they don't want to. lol.

Morning TDS,

I think I know where the problem is with this one - have you got a thread so I can have a read through it, or can you give me a brief summary of whats happened?

TBD.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

I think I should put some details together for the adjudicator now as well, but they obviously not thought of "mortgage packagers" the middlemen I suppose, and they know EPF were the lender and wondered if they have already asked them for paperwork which will confirm this.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

HFC originally provided the card. they are, I recall, owned by HSBC? Marbles have said that HSBC sold the PPI "so go to them" sort of message. Next I know HFC have written saying "go to Marbles." So the FOS can deal with it since clearly they don't want to. lol.

So your getting the full runaround as well then TDS.:tinysmile_aha_t:

I know what you mean about the FOS as well, which is why now I'm going to bring a few issues up with them.

Good luck on yours, keep us informed, I'm sure TBD will have something to say about it as well lol.

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

What evidence did you provide to the FOS for them to turn this round on HFC?.

HFC originally provided the card. they are, I recall, owned by HSBC? Marbles have said that HSBC sold the PPI "so go to them" sort of message. Next I know HFC have written saying "go to Marbles." So the FOS can deal with it since clearly they don't want to. lol.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

He's going to be able to establish a relationship on this one.

Going back to the dates in question Di, the mortgage and secured loan market was completely different to the way it is today.

There were a huge amount of lenders in the market, and I would class them as either Primary lenders or Secondary/ Centralised lenders. Now, primary lenders were the big high street lenders, who would lend the money and hold onto the loans, so you've got the big names in there like Halifax, Cheltenham & Gloucester, The Woolwich, Nationwide etc.

The Secondary/Centralised lenders were smaller than the big players, and they consisted of most of the sub prime lenders like SPML, Kensington, Amber Homeloans, GMAC as well as a number of second charge secured lenders - one of which was Endeavour Personal Finance. Now even though EPF was owned by HSBC, the way it operated was very different to it's parent company and how it would make money was to lend the money to it's borrowers and then it would sell on the loans to another company, in a process known as Securitization. In effect, it created a market for debt to be bought and sold.

Secondary lenders made huge profits by doing this, and even though they were small, they were lending huge amounts of money because of it's business model.

Why were secondary lenders so successful at the time? It's the way they got the business in through the door. Prior to the credit crunch, the people who were writing the most mortgage business were mortgage and credit brokers and there were literally tens of thousands of them throughout the country.

Rather than these secondary lenders pay for premesis in every city and pay staff costs and all the other overheads, what all they did was to set up what was known as packaging agencies and give them to companies they deemed to be fit - these companies were known as mortgage packagers.

Packagers used to handle all the paperwork on behalf of the lender, and the lender would pay the packager a fee for doing it on completion of the loan - it was a fantastic business model for the lender as they wouldn't have to pay for the staff etc to do this work - instead, they could pay someone a fee on a case by case basis.

So, you could have a bog standard broker, who was a pure broker, who would try and match your needs with the best rate, help you complete the paperwork - send it to the lender directly, and hopefully you would get the loan.

On the other hand, you could go to a broker, who would help you with the paperwork, but rather than send it direct to the lender, they would send it to a packager. It could be the case that they would also (possibly without telling you), be a packager and doing all the paperwork on behalf of the lender as well. So they would do the credit search, the employment references, an existing mortgage reference and THE VALUATION.

Without a shadow of a doubt - Click were the packager as the valuation is clearly instructed by them. Mortgage brokers don't instruct valuations - only the lender or one of it's packaging agents can do this.

So whats happened in your case is this:

You've applied to Click for a loan, and they've placed the case with EPF. What Click didn't tell you is they were a packager on behalf of EPF, and not only did they broker the loan, they also packaged it - ie - did all of EPF's paperwork on their behalf. Click would have signed a packaging Agency agreement with EPF in order to act as it's agent - and this paperwork will be with EPF.

So - the link between the 3 parties.

Well, you won't prove one directly between Hamilton and Click, because you'd have to go through EPF to find it - but the link is as follows:

Hamilton were the underwriters of the ppi policy. They had a contract in place to supply EPF with insurance policies of this type and EPF financed the sale of the policies and paid Hamilton directly for the policy on completion of the loan. Hamilton also paid EPF a commission for seeling the policy, so they're both tucked up in bed together.

EPF gave Click Finance a Packaging agreement, which allowed Click to act as it's agent in completing references on behalf of EPF. Click did not just act in it's capacity as a broker - it acted as a Packaging agent of EPF with your loan and a contract was signed to allow it to do this. This is clearly evidenced by who instructed the valuation report EPF didn't instruct it - Click did, and if you delve deeper in this - you'll find a lot more evidence of their involvement as a packager. If wither of you were employed at the time, EPF would have wanted some form of reference - if you were to ask your HR Departments to confirm who wrote to them asking for info - it would have been click.

EPF would also have wanted what was known as a BSQ - which is a Building Society Questionnaire - where they would have asked for a mortgage reference from your lender, which I can see was Chelsea, and they would also have asked Chelsea as they were your 1st charge mortgage holders if EPF could have the 2nd charge on the property as the loan was secured. If you call the Chelsea on Monday morning and ask them who sent you the BSQ - they'll tell you it was Click because this was the role of the Packaging partner.

I read early on in the post about the clause about brokers:

It is accepted that where you used a credit broker, you did so on your own free choice. You acknowledge that you have not paid fees to the credit broker, sub broker or any other person in respect of your introduction. Any credit broker involved with the transaction shall be regarded as your agent and we are not responsible for his actions or advice.

This might not be legal if Click were just normal brokers, but it doesn't apply anyway, because Click weren't acting as brokers - they were the packager. And a packager's duty of care doesn't go to the borrower - their duty of care is to the lender because they're acting on behalf of the lender as their agent.

All this now puts Hamilton firmly in the frame as it can be proved the link between all parties. As you've stated, as Click have dissolved, theres no paperwork, but I'll bet you the farm that EPF have got a copy of that Packaging Agreement, and as soon as the FOS see it - then they're going to establish a link straight away.

I hope that I've made it clear Di, but id theres anything youre not sure of or dont understand, please drop me a line back,

TBD.

TBD

WOW thank you.
I am to read it all again and to take it all in but thanks again.

So basically the adjudicator have not dug in deep enough about this then to actually confirm he is unable to go any further himself as he was unable to establish the relationship.
So how would I actually go into this to the adjudicator, or the ombudsman it would be now if its to be reviewed as such?

And what evidence would I have to provide?

Just trying to get my head around it lol.

Chelsea is no longer our mortgage lender but I wonder if I was to write to them if they would be able to confirm anything to me?

I still have details of my mortgage account number for Chelsea, will give them a call on Monday, they may be open on the weekends as well but not sure about the data debt.

My husband was employed and myself housewife, and they did get in touch with his HR dept for details on wages for hubby etc, I have this on paperwork via Click as well.

What I am not sure about is, how HFC came into it, which is why I assumed they were responsible with getting in touch with us before the loan was paid out?

[The_Big_Dog]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

He's going to be able to establish a relationship on this one.

Going back to the dates in question Di, the mortgage and secured loan market was completely different to the way it is today.

There were a huge amount of lenders in the market, and I would class them as either Primary lenders or Secondary/ Centralised lenders. Now, primary lenders were the big high street lenders, who would lend the money and hold onto the loans, so you've got the big names in there like Halifax, Cheltenham & Gloucester, The Woolwich, Nationwide etc.

The Secondary/Centralised lenders were smaller than the big players, and they consisted of most of the sub prime lenders like SPML, Kensington, Amber Homeloans, GMAC as well as a number of second charge secured lenders - one of which was Endeavour Personal Finance. Now even though EPF was owned by HSBC, the way it operated was very different to it's parent company and how it would make money was to lend the money to it's borrowers and then it would sell on the loans to another company, in a process known as Securitization. In effect, it created a market for debt to be bought and sold.

Secondary lenders made huge profits by doing this, and even though they were small, they were lending huge amounts of money because of it's business model.

Why were secondary lenders so successful at the time? It's the way they got the business in through the door. Prior to the credit crunch, the people who were writing the most mortgage business were mortgage and credit brokers and there were literally tens of thousands of them throughout the country.

Rather than these secondary lenders pay for premesis in every city and pay staff costs and all the other overheads, what all they did was to set up what was known as packaging agencies and give them to companies they deemed to be fit - these companies were known as mortgage packagers.

Packagers used to handle all the paperwork on behalf of the lender, and the lender would pay the packager a fee for doing it on completion of the loan - it was a fantastic business model for the lender as they wouldn't have to pay for the staff etc to do this work - instead, they could pay someone a fee on a case by case basis.

So, you could have a bog standard broker, who was a pure broker, who would try and match your needs with the best rate, help you complete the paperwork - send it to the lender directly, and hopefully you would get the loan.

On the other hand, you could go to a broker, who would help you with the paperwork, but rather than send it direct to the lender, they would send it to a packager. It could be the case that they would also (possibly without telling you), be a packager and doing all the paperwork on behalf of the lender as well. So they would do the credit search, the employment references, an existing mortgage reference and THE VALUATION.

Without a shadow of a doubt - Click were the packager as the valuation is clearly instructed by them. Mortgage brokers don't instruct valuations - only the lender or one of it's packaging agents can do this.

So whats happened in your case is this:

You've applied to Click for a loan, and they've placed the case with EPF. What Click didn't tell you is they were a packager on behalf of EPF, and not only did they broker the loan, they also packaged it - ie - did all of EPF's paperwork on their behalf. Click would have signed a packaging Agency agreement with EPF in order to act as it's agent - and this paperwork will be with EPF.

So - the link between the 3 parties.

Well, you won't prove one directly between Hamilton and Click, because you'd have to go through EPF to find it - but the link is as follows:

Hamilton were the underwriters of the ppi policy. They had a contract in place to supply EPF with insurance policies of this type and EPF financed the sale of the policies and paid Hamilton directly for the policy on completion of the loan. Hamilton also paid EPF a commission for seeling the policy, so they're both tucked up in bed together.

EPF gave Click Finance a Packaging agreement, which allowed Click to act as it's agent in completing references on behalf of EPF. Click did not just act in it's capacity as a broker - it acted as a Packaging agent of EPF with your loan and a contract was signed to allow it to do this. This is clearly evidenced by who instructed the valuation report EPF didn't instruct it - Click did, and if you delve deeper in this - you'll find a lot more evidence of their involvement as a packager. If wither of you were employed at the time, EPF would have wanted some form of reference - if you were to ask your HR Departments to confirm who wrote to them asking for info - it would have been click.

EPF would also have wanted what was known as a BSQ - which is a Building Society Questionnaire - where they would have asked for a mortgage reference from your lender, which I can see was Chelsea, and they would also have asked Chelsea as they were your 1st charge mortgage holders if EPF could have the 2nd charge on the property as the loan was secured. If you call the Chelsea on Monday morning and ask them who sent you the BSQ - they'll tell you it was Click because this was the role of the Packaging partner.

I read early on in the post about the clause about brokers:

It is accepted that where you used a credit broker, you did so on your own free choice. You acknowledge that you have not paid fees to the credit broker, sub broker or any other person in respect of your introduction. Any credit broker involved with the transaction shall be regarded as your agent and we are not responsible for his actions or advice.

This might not be legal if Click were just normal brokers, but it doesn't apply anyway, because Click weren't acting as brokers - they were the packager. And a packager's duty of care doesn't go to the borrower - their duty of care is to the lender because they're acting on behalf of the lender as their agent.

All this now puts Hamilton firmly in the frame as it can be proved the link between all parties. As you've stated, as Click have dissolved, theres no paperwork, but I'll bet you the farm that EPF have got a copy of that Packaging Agreement, and as soon as the FOS see it - then they're going to establish a link straight away.

I hope that I've made it clear Di, but id theres anything youre not sure of or dont understand, please drop me a line back,

TBD.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

wow, Di! You've been busy.

Guess what ref my HFC/Marbles claim?

Right, Marbles said its an HFC issue as the PPI was sold by them originally. The FOS have sent back all my papers saying I need to get a final response from HFC. HFC have written saying its Marbles issue as they own the account! Jeez, what a complete con.

I have written to FOS complaining and telling the adjudicator to pass it to her line manager prompto.

If my card with HFC was taken out in 2000, do you think this Click Finance shower had anything to do with it as well?

Hi TDS

LOL yeah been posting docs as I find them in case I lose them again :tinysmile_hmm_t2: LOL.

Crikey that's a turn up for the books.
What evidence did you provide to the FOS for them to turn this round on HFC?

Very interesting, and nothing surprises me with Click Finance to be honest.

The adjudicator supposed to be writing a letter early next week, I was hoping he would email me with the outcome yesterday, as HFC had until 30 June to get back to them.

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

wow, Di! You've been busy.

Guess what ref my HFC/Marbles claim?

Right, Marbles said its an HFC issue as the PPI was sold by them originally. The FOS have sent back all my papers saying I need to get a final response from HFC. HFC have written saying its Marbles issue as they own the account! Jeez, what a complete con.

I have written to FOS complaining and telling the adjudicator to pass it to her line manager prompto.

If my card with HFC was taken out in 2000, do you think this Click Finance shower had anything to do with it as well?

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Name & Registered Office:
CLICK FINANCE LIMITED
BURLEY HOUSE
12 CLARENDON ROAD
LEEDS
YORKSHIRE
LS2 9NF
Company No. 04239176


Status: Dissolved
Date of Incorporation: 21/06/2001

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
6523 - Other financial intermediation

Accounting Reference Date: 31/05
Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/05/2004 (TOTAL EXEMPTION SMALL)
Next Accounts Due:
Last Return Made Up To: 21/06/2004
Next Return Due:

Last Members List: 21/06/2004

Insolvency History

Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name08/10/20031 CLICK LOANS LIMITED
Previous Names:
Name & Registered Office:
CLICK FINANCE LIMITED
BURLEY HOUSE
12 CLARENDON ROAD
LEEDS
YORKSHIRE
LS2 9NF
Company No. 04239176


Status: Dissolved
Date of Incorporation: 21/06/2001

Name & Registered Office:
CLICK FINANCE LIMITED
BURLEY HOUSE
12 CLARENDON ROAD
LEEDS
YORKSHIRE
LS2 9NF
Company No. 04239176


Status: Dissolved
Date of Incorporation: 21/06/2001

Date of change Previous Name
08/10/2003 1 CLICK LOANS LIMITED

UK Establishment Details

There are no UK Establishments associated with this company.


UK Establishment Details There are no UK Establishments associated with this company.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

I had wrote a few letters to HFC/Endeavour as they are based together now at the same address as you will see at the bottom of the letter, and the letters I sent were to HFC, this was to ask their involvement in the loan process, the last few letters I tried getting it out of them but they did not mention HFC, but since then the Adjudicator had been in contact with them and it seems they are now saying "they could have had involvement".

Letter here.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

I note the tel number on the above posted PPI policy document details, the last page gives the number of 01344 356123.
Now its the same tel number on HFC Banks Customer speaks form.