PPI Car finance

[mlm309]

Hi i need some advice, my partner has requested a finance company refund PPI on a loan he had for a land rover.
This company has sent this paperwork on to the car dealership who have responded (quite rudely) saying they will not up hold his complaint.
It clearly shows on the schedule the loan amount, the interest, the monthly PPI amount and the box with a nice big tick inside to say that he has taken it
the company states that he was aware of the PPI, opted for it and a copy of the paperwork and a schedule was sent out afterwards so there was plenty of time to opt out. And that after 9 years he shouldnt be asking for a refund.
Help please as my partner can not remember this being discussed, he was only in his early twenties and said he would have agreed to anything and signed anything to get the car he wanted.
please help

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI Car finance

Hi mlm309, and welcome to you. Have a read through some of the info in the PPI section (click on the 'PPI' tab at top of the page). In particular, read through this list of possible reasons for considering PPI to have been mis-sold. I think you may be able to 'tick several boxes' in that list:-

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ASE-READ-FIRST

I'm not sure who is the dealership's regulatory body, but it may well be the Finance and Leasing Association (FLA). See here for the FLA publications - I think the Lending Code 2002 is the one which applies to this particular sale:-

http://www.fla.org.uk/consumers/publications

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) Policy Statement PS 10/12 contains complaint handling rules on insurance mis-selling, but these may not directly apply to FLA members. However, the FLA uses a separate arbitration service to resolve complaints, so it would not be unreasonable to quote the FSA's rules in setting out your case to them. Here are some which I think might apply. I think if you quoted these to the dealership, you may possibly get a better response:-

DISP APP 3.2.2 The firm should seek to establish the true substance of the complaint, rather than taking a narrow interpretation of the issues raised, and should not focus solely on the specific expression of the complaint. This is likely to require an approach to complaint handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the complaint.

DISP APP 3.3.1 Where a complaint is made, the firm should assess the complaint fairly, giving appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence, including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the firm identifies. The firm is not expected automatically to assume that there has been a breach or failing.

DISP APP 3.3.2 The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.

DISP APP 3.3.3 The firm should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by documentary proof. The firm should take account of a complainant's limited ability fully to articulate his complaint or to explain his actions or decisions made at the time of the sale.

DISP APP 3.3.4 Where the complainant's account of events conflicts with the firm's own records or leaves doubt, the firm should assess the reliability of the complainant's account fairly and in good faith. The firm should make all reasonable efforts (including by contact with the complainant where necessary) to clarify ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before making any finding against the complainant.

DISP APP 3.3.5 The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.

DISP APP 3.3.9 In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).

[miliitant]

Re: PPI Car finance

Hi bill

it will be the fla as its 9 years old

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI Car finance

Thanks for that confirmation, Militant. I've no experience in dealing with the FLA, but I'm hoping we can still quote FSA guidelines in setting out a case for the arbitrators.

[mlm309]

Re: PPI Car finance

Thank you i will have a read now and see if i can get my head around it all
Also is it worth writing back to the company or going straight to the F.O?
Any tips when writing back
Please

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI Car finance

Yep. Have a read, m - and take your time to get your head around it.

Sorry if it wasn't clear, but what we have been saying is that the FOS probably doesn't have any direct 'jurisdiction' here, and that the FLA is the elevant authority. BUT - the FLA doesn't seem to have a comprehensive set of rules like the FOS does, and it uses a separate arbitrator to decide on claims. So - do not contact the FOS about this. I would advise contacting the dealership - and gather as much evidence from that as you can.

Now, the FSA made the rules (as referred to above as PS 10/12) which the FOS applies (reputedly !!!) to the PPI claims which it deals with. BUT the FLA does NOT have to use these rules. Howevva - in the absence of any pre-defined FLA rules - then it may well help the adjudicator decide, if you can quote the FSA rules in your submission to them. They are not obliged to abide by them - but they are only guidelines, anyway - and as such are not legally enforceable.