Underwriter success PPI

[bellycakes]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi there
thank you for your details.

I was one of the fortunate ones to be successful via Genworth and I've known of others too, but recently it does seem they are getting tougher and going along with the other business that rejected, so on the other thread i applied you will find it interesting and with the underwriter its all about the wording, because they do not want to hold the responsibility of them actually selling the policy to you, because as we know it is down to the broker, but the point is they still had joint liabilities.

I will of course send you my letter is you wish to take a look and maybe it will help you on the wording of the letter, let me know and also worth out checking the other threads as stated as well. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

If you could send me a copy of your letter that would be fantastic, it will help me hugely in getting down on paper what I want to say but with wording it correctly and hopefully to my benefit! The other threads have definately given me great confidence to take this further and not to give up. I'm not owed a huge sum but it's more about the principal of it! They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it without paying up! x

[di30]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hiya, I have messaged you (PM) x Good luck x :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Kezza13]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hiya, I have messaged you (PM) x Good luck x :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Hi,

I am new to all this, but am trying to reclaim PPI on an Adams MasterCard provided by Creation Financial Serviced Limited. I took out the store card in 2004 in store, I was told to tick the 3D box (their name for the insurance) to improve chances of being accepted for the card. I was not told at any point that it was an insurance product, what it covered and that it would cost me anything! I have sent my complaint to Creation and received a final response yesterday telling me that the policy was sold inline with FLA Lending Code requirements, it was not compulsory and was sold on a non-advised basis, although limited information is given at point of sale a full information pack would have been sent to me shortly afterwards and that I would have had a 30 day cooling off period and that the monthly charge was separately detailed on every statement therefore they feel that a refund of premiums is not warranted. They also enclosed a poor photocopy of a policy which has been shrunk and the writing is too small to decipher! However I can see that their underwriters are/were St Andrews Life Assurance plc and St Andrews Insurance plc. They did tell me I could forward my complaint to the FLA but have seen many people saying they are useless. Does anyone think I have any chance going through the underwriters at all?
TIA

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hello, Kezza and thank you for your information.
Di will be the best person to help you with the underwriters. There is always a chance with the underwriters. At least they are regulated by the FOS and eventually, thoug it may take a long time, the Ombudsman can be helpful and make them to refund your premiums. (Hopefully the link between the underwriters and Creation can be established). So you can take your case to the FOS.
I would do it anyway not to lose time. However it should not prevent you from going back to Creation and challenging their decision. Final letter does not mean it is final if it is wrong. You can call it a new information. If it does not work, next step is to complain to their CEO about your case and the way your complaint was handled.
i had 3 rejections final letters from Santander, final, final-final and then final-final-final. My case started in early December and now, 4 month later and 3 "final" rejection letters later thay had to agree to refund. The situation was similar, non regulated, store card before 2005, not under the jurisdiction of the FOS.
So, please do not be discouraged by the "final" letter. It is only a beginning.
they hope you will not pursue it. This is their tactic.
At the moment I am also having my case with Creation and I know I might be for a long run... Dealing with Creation we have to become Creative, strong and to think a few steps ahead of them.
This is my last PPI reclaim, my 9th company.
so, dear Kezza, you are not along. We are here for you.
Those non regulated companies think they can get away with anything, but the rules apply to non advised sales before 2005 just the same.
i can already see, reading your post that at least 2 points of the FCA guidelines they are in breach of in their approach to the evidence.
they base their rejection mainly on 2 facts:
1) your signature;
2) the fact that you did not cancel the policy.
both reasons for rejection are in the breach of the FCA guidelines.

They write to you that a limited information was given at the point of sale. The main document was sent after. That is not the correct procedure.
for a non advised sale the main features, exclusions etc. have to be disclosed to you before sale is completed to enable you to make an "informed decision". Informed decision is the key. So the information has to be given to you before you agree to buy the PPI. Not after. If you have 30 days to cancel it, that twists the point about what is optional. Optional should be - to take that insurance, not to opt out of it, to cancel it.

it is obvious that either they are not aware of the FCA guidelines or they hope you are not aware of them.

so I am going to enclose the relevant links and a short summary here for your information.
may be you will find it helpful.


All the details can be found if you open the links I enclose here.


(http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/DISP/App/3


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...pproach.html#7)




In short:




1.the FCA Guidelines are for both advised and non advised sales, before and after 2005.




2.The information has to be given before sale is completed for non advised sales, not post sale relying on the policy document sent later by post as an excuse to avoid responsibility.
It has to be done BEFORE sale is completed to enable a customer to make an informed decision.




3.This requirement is specifically emphasised by the FOS, where it is stated, that it is not enough to remind a customer to read the policy.




4. The company should not reject a complaint on the basis that the policy was not cancelled.




5. The company should not assume that by signing the document a customer agreed to take the policy.




6. There is requirement to draw a customer's attention to the onerous terms of the policy for a NON ADVISED sale BEFORE it is completed.




7. The company should learn from the relevant FCA and FOS documents, case studies, relevant FOS findings etc. to see if some similar cases were already upheld.
(This should be the company's job, not ours )




8. The same problem should not be repeated again and again.
If the same problem keeps occurring and the FOS has already upheld cases with similar circumstances, while the company keeps rejecting similar cases, ignoring the relevant findings, that means something is wrong with the company, according to the FCA.




9. FOS gives clear criteria about the policy documents, using case studies as example. For instance, where in the document relevant information should be disclosed, how long is the document, is the script too small, is it closely worded etc. Often the policy documents do not meet this criteria and therefore are hard to understand for us.
It has to be taken into consideration.


Just a food for thought...
please understand, that my English is far from perfect, being my second language, however, I hope you can get the sense and can see what I mean and to say it in your own words




That statement from the FCA might be useful somewhere:




A statement from the FCA said: 'We expect all firms to comply with our rules and treat their customers fairly.
'Firms know that PPI complaints must be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action, where required, is taken promptly.
'Our rules are very clear that firms are expected to learn from previous complaints. So if there are significant numbers of complaints coming in about the same thing, that is a clear warning sign that something isn't right.'




Thank you
Good luck!


Vxx

[di30]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Kezza and welcome to LB.

Excellent info posted from Victoria, have a read through it and it all makes very good sense. These banks still have rules to follow under the handling side of things too, but I will of course post back some time later on with info on the underwriters etc....:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Kezza13]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Thank you for your help. So do you think I should respond to Creation or FLA first before going down the underwriter route?

[L'pool64]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Kezza,

isn't Victoria magnificent? (So good to see you posting on other threads Victoria)

the FLA is a bit of a waste of time. I would try Creation first, if you send or mail your letter to the CEO: then you can say that you are doing as the Regulators suggest "the company must be given every chance to address your complaint". The CEO or their staff usually have 5/10 day turnaround times. Then you can try Genworth, you won't have lost much time.

very best regards,

:beagle:

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

You are very welcome, Kezza.
let's see what Di says. She is our star.
i went at the same time down the underwriter route and back to Santander. I did not go to FLA. Still you can try FLA as well, of course. May be all three avenues? I did 2 at the same time. I know that the underwriter route, if they reject and it goes to the FOS will take about 3 years. That is why I did not want to waste time, not knowing how long it will take me to deal with Santander. So I went down the underwriter route straight away after the final letter (No 2 )
at the same time I continued to pursue the company till they eventually gave in.
i do not know much about FLA. Only what I read on the forums. They seem to be very much in line with the companies, not the customers. That is the impression I had.
however there is nothing to stop you to try.
Let's see what Di suggests
I'll keep you posted about my own Creation case.
Knowing about that company, i do not expect much from them, so I am getting ready to strike
they are my last company, No 9.

i noticed another point, you mentioned in their letter, about monthly charge being separately detailed on every statement. So what? In no way it proves that you knew that insurance was optional.

The FOS case 71/1 is given as an example, where the FOS strongly disagrees that premiums shown on the statements in any way prove that the cover is optional.


This wrong statement, which makes absolutely no sense, can be found practically in every template rejection letter, written by companies like Creation and Santander, where they say that premiums payable are shown on our statements when balance is outstanding, and that proves that insurance is optional.
Why? Nobody has a clue. just a nonsense. The FOS disagrees.
The FOS has already addressed this issue as unacceptable.
However since 2008 some businesses, who know that they can't be brought to the Ombudsman to be adjudicated properly, keep repeating that statement, using it as an argument.


The FOS published case 71/1 in 2008.
The FCA states that the company must learn from the previous cases and findings and not repeat the same misinformation.
i think you have enough of good points to bring to the attention of Creation, if you decide to go back there.
i would not wait and would start the underwriter route straight away at the same time, whatever you do.
i honestly do not know about FLA.
we'll ask Di

best of luck.

Vx

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

L'pool, my dear, how wonderful to see you!
yes, I agree. We have to give them "every chance" to start behaving properly
if they ignore those chances, there might be a good chance, that we will bring them to the attention of the FCA.

so, you agree that FLA is a bit of a waste of time. That was my impression as well.
thank you.
lol
Vxx

[L'pool64]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Sorry Kezza,

not Genworth but St Andrews!! Apologies, I am Genworth on the brain!

:beagle:

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

L'pool, they all could be called the same. Genworth, St Andrews, no difference. The unacceptable way they behave is more or less identical
Vxx

[di30]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Sorry I am posting late, been trying to get rid of a migraine, but am getting there.
Kezza, if you wish i can send you a copy of my letter i used, and if you think it will help, feel free to follow the wording and apply your own reasons.

When it comes to the underwriter, the wordings of the letter is important,as in this case you do not use a complaint form, as these are usually just for the brokers only, and the underwriters may come back to say they had no part. Okay, this is true of having no part of the sale of the ppi, but they do have liabilities.

When i send you the letter i done, you will see what i mean, hope it helps you and if you wish, as i done i did complete the form with the FLA, even with a doubt with it not going anywhere, but just to rule them out, and at the same time i did put a letter in to the underwriter the same time, its up to you of course :tinysmile_twink_t2:

Very useful info posted by Victoria, L'pool and also Lou lou too also on the other threads.
Give me a few mins and i shall message you. Good luck and stay strong x

[Kezza13]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Thank you for your help! Much appreciated. Will try and get a letter sent ASAP (have 4 very young children so not an easy task!) will update if I get any news

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

You are very welcome, Kezza.
Good luck!
what a pity all this nonsense takes up your time and energy, needed for you family. It should have been a straight forward matter.
best,
Vxx

[di30]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Good luck Kezza, we are here for you. :tinysmile_twink_t2: