Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

The legal charge paperwork is also dated 30 July 2004, headed with Endeavour, so it seems the main of the paperwork is that of these, the only paperwork we do have via Click is that of the application form and a copy of the house valuation report.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Copy of the lender agreement dated 05 July 2004 & Loan agreement dated 30 July, same lender, but our copy.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Copy of the lender agreement dated 05 July 2004

And copy of agreement by same lender signed for 30 July 2004 to follow.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Copy of the lender agreement dated 05 July 2004 A Bad copy, as you see it when you click on it is how it is, nothing altered and no account number was added on this one either.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

The issues lie now of who actually added the ppi really, as it certainly wasn't on the Broker Click Application paperwork, only that of the paperwork we have from HFC, but what you have said certainly seems to be the case.
It was definately added further down the process of the loan, where we had no further contact with the broker after the application.

We received an email this morning from the Adjudicator, he says he heard from HFC yesterday, he put it down as "HFC contacted me yesterday and I will be sending a letter to you early next week".

So we will soon see, yet we were given until yesterday ourselves to let him know if we want this reviewed by the ombudsman, we confirmed yes we did a few weeks back, so didn't think the adjudicator would have any further involvement in this case from yesterday the deadline - meanings he could not establish the relationship.

[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I have a sneaky feeling that they'll let HFC off the hook and they'll have an excuse why they did the speak with on HFC paperwork, which I think this Adjudicator will swallow. I think they'll state something along the lines of 'it's an internal document, which was for our eyes only - the customers requested a sar and we sent it out to them, however, it was EPF doing the speak with'[/font].

The more I think about it, the more the HFC link could be a red herring here. However, you've stated the case in your last post:

The issues lie now of who actually added the ppi really, as it certainly wasn't on the Broker Click Application paperwork, only that of the paperwork we have from HFC, but what you have said certainly seems to be the case.
It was definately added further down the process of the loan, where we had no further contact with the broker after the application.

There can only be one party who could have possibly added the ppi then - and thats EPF, and they gave the advice in the eyes of the law (even though there wasn't any advice but they seem to have bunged it on). As you've stated, EPF weren't under FOS juristiction until 2007, so we've then got to look at the insurer, and EPF were acting as it's agents. It's now totally irrespective what EPF have got in their contract with Click - it now boils down to what was the relationship between Hamilton and EPF - and it's going to be that EPF have a contract with Hamilton and they will be acting as it's agents because they're the ones collecting the premium for the ppi. EPF didn't send you the ppi premium and ask you to forward it to Hamilton did they? No they didn't - they paid it themselves which I think is a clear link between them.

I know earlier on, you stated that the loan was regulated under the CCA. As it's a regulated loan, you would have had 2 loan agreements come out to you within 8 days as they would have had to give you cancellation rights. Have you kept both loan docs and are they identical? and secondly - where were they sent from - was the cover letter on a Click letterhead or on an EPF letterhead? If it's EPF then it adds weight that Click purely forwarded your details to them and EPF did all the underwriting on the loan and put the ppi on there.

I don't think this has gone to an Ombudsman as of yet as the Adjudicator is still investigating. I wouldn't escalate this until the Adjudicator has given you his view on the whole thing. If he doesn't like it - tough. He's got to fully investigate this and because you're giving him further information, he can't take a view on it. If he turns around and says - my original view stands, then you can ask it to be escalated.

If he's a bit of a lazy sod (which a few of them are Di!), I'd ask him informally (bearing in mind that the premium is only going to cover the first named on the agreement and only for the first 5 years of the loan) if he didn't have juristiction issues - would he find in your favour on what he's seen so far? If he gives the slightest indication that he would, then you've got every right to turn around to him and state - right, you think I've been mis-sold this so I think it's only fair that you continue to exhaust every avenue before issuing your view because I've suffered a financial loss and I feel it only fair that I have a full investigation to the points raised.

TBD.

Hiya and WOW thank you again.

I do have 2 copies of the EPF agreements, funny thing is one is a lenders copy that was enclosed within a SAR, and funny enough dated before the Click loan application taken place, something not right here either..........yet, its a VERY bad print out and you cannot see a lot, only the date signed by the lender and a scribbled out siggie our personal details are faded out, I will try to scan and post this up later, because your not able to see my details anyway.
This one dated by the lender 5th July.

Application from Click issued and taken place over the phone on 8th July, we signed their application on the 16th July.

HFC rang 26th July.

The other EPF agreement our copy is dated 30 July.

Cheque received the same time which was weird, as they asked us to send by special delivery with the envelope already enclosed, and cheque cleared 3 August.
And our copy is the one we received and

On my next post I am going to attach the lenders copy dated 05th July 2004..

[The_Big_Dog]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

The issues lie now of who actually added the ppi really, as it certainly wasn't on the Broker Click Application paperwork, only that of the paperwork we have from HFC, but what you have said certainly seems to be the case.
It was definately added further down the process of the loan, where we had no further contact with the broker after the application.

We received an email this morning from the Adjudicator, he says he heard from HFC yesterday, he put it down as "HFC contacted me yesterday and I will be sending a letter to you early next week".

So we will soon see, yet we were given until yesterday ourselves to let him know if we want this reviewed by the ombudsman, we confirmed yes we did a few weeks back, so didn't think the adjudicator would have any further involvement in this case from yesterday the deadline - meanings he could not establish the relationship.

[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif]I have a sneaky feeling that they'll let HFC off the hook and they'll have an excuse why they did the speak with on HFC paperwork, which I think this Adjudicator will swallow. I think they'll state something along the lines of 'it's an internal document, which was for our eyes only - the customers requested a sar and we sent it out to them, however, it was EPF doing the speak with'[/FONT].

The more I think about it, the more the HFC link could be a red herring here. However, you've stated the case in your last post:

The issues lie now of who actually added the ppi really, as it certainly wasn't on the Broker Click Application paperwork, only that of the paperwork we have from HFC, but what you have said certainly seems to be the case.
It was definately added further down the process of the loan, where we had no further contact with the broker after the application.

There can only be one party who could have possibly added the ppi then - and thats EPF, and they gave the advice in the eyes of the law (even though there wasn't any advice but they seem to have bunged it on). As you've stated, EPF weren't under FOS juristiction until 2007, so we've then got to look at the insurer, and EPF were acting as it's agents. It's now totally irrespective what EPF have got in their contract with Click - it now boils down to what was the relationship between Hamilton and EPF - and it's going to be that EPF have a contract with Hamilton and they will be acting as it's agents because they're the ones collecting the premium for the ppi. EPF didn't send you the ppi premium and ask you to forward it to Hamilton did they? No they didn't - they paid it themselves which I think is a clear link between them.

I know earlier on, you stated that the loan was regulated under the CCA. As it's a regulated loan, you would have had 2 loan agreements come out to you within 8 days as they would have had to give you cancellation rights. Have you kept both loan docs and are they identical? and secondly - where were they sent from - was the cover letter on a Click letterhead or on an EPF letterhead? If it's EPF then it adds weight that Click purely forwarded your details to them and EPF did all the underwriting on the loan and put the ppi on there.

I don't think this has gone to an Ombudsman as of yet as the Adjudicator is still investigating. I wouldn't escalate this until the Adjudicator has given you his view on the whole thing. If he doesn't like it - tough. He's got to fully investigate this and because you're giving him further information, he can't take a view on it. If he turns around and says - my original view stands, then you can ask it to be escalated.

If he's a bit of a lazy sod (which a few of them are Di!), I'd ask him informally (bearing in mind that the premium is only going to cover the first named on the agreement and only for the first 5 years of the loan) if he didn't have juristiction issues - would he find in your favour on what he's seen so far? If he gives the slightest indication that he would, then you've got every right to turn around to him and state - right, you think I've been mis-sold this so I think it's only fair that you continue to exhaust every avenue before issuing your view because I've suffered a financial loss and I feel it only fair that I have a full investigation to the points raised.

TBD.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Hi Di,

Cor - you've gone into some serious effort here and I think your persistence might way pay off.

I thought I knew which way this one was going until I got to the application form bit, when it went off on a slightly different course as to who's liable here.

Looking at what's happened - there are 3 parties involved in this claim. Firstly, you've got Hamilton, who are the principal insurers of the policy. They may also be called the underwriters, but this is in relation to their risk for paying out a claim under the policy as opposed to underwiting the lenders risk to see if you're good for the money.

Secondly, you've got the lender, which is EPF - Endeavour Personal Finance. It's their money which you borrowed for the loan AND to purchase the PPI policy.

Finally, you've got the broker who brokered your credit application, which is Click Finance.

Under normal circumstances, the complaint would be directed to Click as they were the advisers in your case and they conducted, I presume, whats known as 'antecedental negotiations' - ie - there was a discussion between both parties, therefore, they were the ones responsible for the advice. Click have ceased trading, therefore, a claim is unable to be bought against them.

Now, to take this one further, you would have to prove a link between all three parties and prove that there was whats known as an Agent/Principal relationship between all of them. The link, very simply, is the payment of commission for the sale of the policies and as it's gone from one party to another and to another, therefore, I would say that Hamilton are the Principle and both EPF and Click acted as it's agents in the sale of the policy.

Whilst there is a clause in the lenders paperwork stating that the broker only acts on behalf of the borrower and they're not responsible for any of the brokers actions, I feel if the FOS dug a bit deeper, they might uncover something. With the upmost respect to the Adjudicator, it could be the case that they don't quite understand what they're doing or they don't understand the relationships that occur in this set of circumstances.

What I would ask the FOS to look at is, as payments of commissions have gone from Hamilton to EPF and on to Click, then there has to be legal contracts between them, because otherwise it would get messy when it came to payment, because, legally, none of them would have a leg to stand on if it came to a dispute about money, so there are bits of papers out there signed between Hamilton & EPF and between EPF and Click. I would be asking the FOS to confirm what do their contracts state and what capacity are they all acting in?

It appears to me as though Click were acting as agents of Endeavour in forwarding your details to them stating you wanted a loan. EPF can argue all day long that the broker wasn't their agent and there was a clause in the contract etc etc - just because theres a clause there - doesn't make it fair and legal.

Somewhere Di, theres paperwork out there stating what commissions are going to be paid, when they're payable and who's paying who - I would be asking the FOS have they seen these, and if not - why? because it'll prove exactly what capacity they're all acting as and it'll prove a link between Hamilton and Click.

The interesting bits are HFC's involvement and the Application Form.

Firstly, the link between HFC and EPF is they're wholly owened subsidiaries of HSBC bank. As they're Limited Companies, they're completely separate legal entities, so it does beg the question why the hell were HFC doing security checks for EPF. It could be something very innocent such as they were coping with backlogs etc - it could well be that both their security checks were the same and in busy periods they did each others etc, however, I can't for the life of me think why you've got speak with paperwork covered in HFC logos - because it's not their loan - it's EPF's.

Which also brings us on to the application form. I don't think that you've examined all avenues on this and it could well unlock the whole case. What was the agreement Click had with EPF? It would have been one of 2 relationships.

Did they act purely as a broker and purely pass your details onto the lender. Based on what's previously been posted - this could well be the case because if Click sent EPF a loan enquiry form stating a loan over 240 months and that was the extent of their involvement, and then it's changed to 300 months and PPI added - then EPF are responsible for the sale because when the form left Click, PPI wasn't included and it could only come from one place - and thats EPF.

The second thing to consider is were Click a packager for the loan? Being a packager means Click would have done the underwriting, carried out the valuation and employment checks, credit searches etc. If they were a packager for EPF then they were definately acting as their agents, and then we're back to Hamilton.

Hope this helps - and I wish you all the best with the case.

TBD

Wow thank you for posting all this. I appreciate it.

And with what your saying it does make sense.

The issues lie now of who actually added the ppi really, as it certainly wasn't on the Broker Click Application paperwork, only that of the paperwork we have from HFC, but what you have said certainly seems to be the case.
It was definately added further down the process of the loan, where we had no further contact with the broker after the application.

We received an email this morning from the Adjudicator, he says he heard from HFC yesterday, he put it down as "HFC contacted me yesterday and I will be sending a letter to you early next week".

So we will soon see, yet we were given until yesterday ourselves to let him know if we want this reviewed by the ombudsman, we confirmed yes we did a few weeks back, so didn't think the adjudicator would have any further involvement in this case from yesterday the deadline - meanings he could not establish the relationship.

So he will be working alongside the ombudsman then maybe.

I will keep you posted though and thank you for the input.

Endeavour was not regulated unfortunately until April 2007, but we know its got to be between these and possibly HFC who are responsible for this.

I am aware HFC were fined for mis selling PPI, and aware HFC/Endeavour work alongside each other, even though the letters we have received are confirmed signed from HFC, the logo on the letter is thost of Endeavour.

A confusing one, but I wouldn't mind you being my Adjudicator lol, you seem to know what is what, cheers again.

[The_Big_Dog]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Hi Di,

Cor - you've gone into some serious effort here and I think your persistence might way pay off.

I thought I knew which way this one was going until I got to the application form bit, when it went off on a slightly different course as to who's liable here.

Looking at what's happened - there are 3 parties involved in this claim. Firstly, you've got Hamilton, who are the principal insurers of the policy. They may also be called the underwriters, but this is in relation to their risk for paying out a claim under the policy as opposed to underwiting the lenders risk to see if you're good for the money.

Secondly, you've got the lender, which is EPF - Endeavour Personal Finance. It's their money which you borrowed for the loan AND to purchase the PPI policy.

Finally, you've got the broker who brokered your credit application, which is Click Finance.

Under normal circumstances, the complaint would be directed to Click as they were the advisers in your case and they conducted, I presume, whats known as 'antecedental negotiations' - ie - there was a discussion between both parties, therefore, they were the ones responsible for the advice. Click have ceased trading, therefore, a claim is unable to be bought against them.

Now, to take this one further, you would have to prove a link between all three parties and prove that there was whats known as an Agent/Principal relationship between all of them. The link, very simply, is the payment of commission for the sale of the policies and as it's gone from one party to another and to another, therefore, I would say that Hamilton are the Principle and both EPF and Click acted as it's agents in the sale of the policy.

Whilst there is a clause in the lenders paperwork stating that the broker only acts on behalf of the borrower and they're not responsible for any of the brokers actions, I feel if the FOS dug a bit deeper, they might uncover something. With the upmost respect to the Adjudicator, it could be the case that they don't quite understand what they're doing or they don't understand the relationships that occur in this set of circumstances.

What I would ask the FOS to look at is, as payments of commissions have gone from Hamilton to EPF and on to Click, then there has to be legal contracts between them, because otherwise it would get messy when it came to payment, because, legally, none of them would have a leg to stand on if it came to a dispute about money, so there are bits of papers out there signed between Hamilton & EPF and between EPF and Click. I would be asking the FOS to confirm what do their contracts state and what capacity are they all acting in?

It appears to me as though Click were acting as agents of Endeavour in forwarding your details to them stating you wanted a loan. EPF can argue all day long that the broker wasn't their agent and there was a clause in the contract etc etc - just because theres a clause there - doesn't make it fair and legal.

Somewhere Di, theres paperwork out there stating what commissions are going to be paid, when they're payable and who's paying who - I would be asking the FOS have they seen these, and if not - why? because it'll prove exactly what capacity they're all acting as and it'll prove a link between Hamilton and Click.

The interesting bits are HFC's involvement and the Application Form.

Firstly, the link between HFC and EPF is they're wholly owened subsidiaries of HSBC bank. As they're Limited Companies, they're completely separate legal entities, so it does beg the question why the hell were HFC doing security checks for EPF. It could be something very innocent such as they were coping with backlogs etc - it could well be that both their security checks were the same and in busy periods they did each others etc, however, I can't for the life of me think why you've got speak with paperwork covered in HFC logos - because it's not their loan - it's EPF's.

Which also brings us on to the application form. I don't think that you've examined all avenues on this and it could well unlock the whole case. What was the agreement Click had with EPF? It would have been one of 2 relationships.

Did they act purely as a broker and purely pass your details onto the lender. Based on what's previously been posted - this could well be the case because if Click sent EPF a loan enquiry form stating a loan over 240 months and that was the extent of their involvement, and then it's changed to 300 months and PPI added - then EPF are responsible for the sale because when the form left Click, PPI wasn't included and it could only come from one place - and thats EPF.

The second thing to consider is were Click a packager for the loan? Being a packager means Click would have done the underwriting, carried out the valuation and employment checks, credit searches etc. If they were a packager for EPF then they were definately acting as their agents, and then we're back to Hamilton.

Hope this helps - and I wish you all the best with the case.

TBD

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

We have been informed that the Adjudicator have already been in touch with HFC in regards of why there is no PPI on the Broker loan application and questioning on the lender loan agreement, so HFC have until 30th of this month to respond to that matter or he will do some chasing.

Dear

I apologise for the delay in responding to you. Once I have received a response from HFC, I will respond to you accordingly in full. I gave HFC till the 30 June to respond to the request I sent to them regarding your case, so I will chase them if nothing is received by close of business on that date.

Yours sincerely

M
Adjudicator | Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Now in light of the above letter received today (posted above), I am now going to question them on the Application form via Click Finance, and ask them to explain why there is no PPI ticked with them that of the broker and why it appears to be added later on with these direct, this question have not been forwarded to them as yet.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

I thought HFC/Endeavour were not writing directly to me, the Adjudicator said all responses will be going back to him, yet we received a letter dated 24 June (so they typed this out yesterday - Friday) and it arrived in the post this morning, think they are trying to make a point.
All the time they said HFC had no involvement they are now stating HFC may have been involved, but still covering their ground.
So due to this I am expecting the letter from the Adjudicator about this as well, still in regards of the Click Application form and the Agreement have not been brought up as yet with them, this have only been a recent thing with the FOS, so that is yet to come.

Anyway, letter here received in today's post.........

Dear Mr & Mrs

Account number: ***********

We write to you further to your letter dated 14 June 2011.

You requested in your letter details of HFC's involvement with Endeavour Personal Finance.
As you will see on the bottom of your Credit Agreement it states registered number and registered address, then advises a member of the Household International Group of Companies.

As part of the Household International Group of Companies the policy was to speak to customers to ensure information passed on by Brokers were correct. For this reason you could have been contacted by a member of staff from HFC Bank Limited.

Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact our Customer Services Department on 0845 602 8230. Monday to Friday, 9.00am to 5.00pm who will be pleased to help.

Yours sincerely

Department Manager
Secured Lending Centre.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

No, its to save shekels with the cutbacks plus the odds are stacked against us now if its the line manager that reviews the case.

Not good news imo but not a surprise to learn of it either.

Its certainly not good news, and I note there seems to be more rejections as well!

Have they also stated about the debanding on the FOS website do you know?
I have not noticed, unless I missed it, cheers.

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

No, its to save shekels with the cutbacks plus the odds are stacked against us now if its the line manager that reviews the case.

Not good news imo but not a surprise to learn of it either.

[di30]

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Yeah, although my adjudicator did add "initially." So if you remain disatisfied it can go to another tier although we do not know what that higher tier is. The manager's manager lol.

Arh right lol, that explains why my adjudicator says he will write to us once he hears from HFC, so he will still be on the case then.
I didn't know about the disbanding though.

Maybe its because it takes even longer otherwise perhaps?

Re: Hamilton/HFC/Endeavour - Reclaim PPI

Yeah, although my adjudicator did add "initially." So if you remain disatisfied it can go to another tier although we do not know what that higher tier is. The manager's manager lol.