Underwriter success PPI

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Celticbhoy,
Right you are, any driving lesson does not stand a chance to compete with a stress level when Santander is driving us mad.


About FLA, not the FOS.
Is that a store card?
They do not refer you to the Ombudsman when for one or another reason they were not regulated when you applied for the card.
I know that it is always the case with store cards before 2005, most of which ended up with Santander.


I thought the underwriter will be Genworth. It is often with Santander.


Genworth were regulated and if they reject, your case can go to the Ombudsman.


You are absolutely right, they, Genworth, were paying out at first, they upheld our lovely Di's case, then her fabulous letter helped a lot of people, but, unfortunately recently they started to reject and repeat Santander's letters word for word, became, sort if, an exention of Santander.
The only difference, you can take your case to the FOS, should they reject.


For your information I enclose our thread about Genworth


http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...lease&p=419445


Di's letter is a dynamite. It might work.
If they reject, you can take it to the FOS, which will be a long process, may be even 3 years (it is longer than usual FOS when it involves underwriters), but it is worthwhile.


I had PPI with 9 different companies and they all refunded, all my cases were upheld eventually, most of them without any problems and stress free.
HSBC initially rejected, but after my email to their CEO reconsidered straight away and also payed extra as a gesture of apology.
Then House of Fraser card, Santander case started, and it became a real House of Horrors.
However, the feeling when you eventually win, is priceless. It "erases" all this stress you are going through now.


When my 2 cases, I mentioned, were rejected, I emailed to the CEO offices.
I did it in both cases, after rejection, first to the HSBC CEO, and second time, to our favourite bank Santander's CEO.
We have the email address available, should you wish to take that route.


HSBC upheld within 5 days with the apology letter.


With Santander it took much longer.
I think I sent them 3 emails to the CEO department and they upheld with apology as well.
However it took 4 months since I started my complaint with Santander, over a months since it got to the CEO, and I got 3 letters of rejection from their complaint department, last one written by the head of PPI complaint department, confirming that my case will not be upheld.
You can appreciate how worthless their statements are, if eventually it was not only upheld, but they also added a compensation for handling it so badly.
I know it is a long time, but well worth it. It still sooner than would gave been with the FOS.


I was determined and turned my "boiling blood" and fury into something positive, a learning experience
I decided to learn all their tricks and design the ways to bring them to light.
While my case was still going on I promised one of their representative that after I observed their truly shameful bahaviour and coming to conclusion it was a pattern, I was going to dedicate any available time I got to helping others. I told him that it was not anymore just about my case, but it affects a large number of public.
He was patronising on the verge of insult and told me he was impressed with my social orientation etc. I still have a recording (by permission ) of my telephone conversation with one young woman, who was openly mocking me.
Neither of them thought I would have strength to keep going till I win, which I did nor did they think I would keep my word and try to fight for other people every case with that company. , which I come across.
It was their mistake


I am telling you all that to "programme" you to win, win, win!


I did not directly threaten them with court, but I made it clear that I would go "as far as necessary"


I copied all my communication with their CEO to my MP in the same email.
I think altogether I emailed 3 letters to the CEO department, as I mentioned before.
I am happy to share all of them that is the reason I saved them, for future help to other people.
Everybody's victory where that company is involved, for me is personal


Our friend Loulou, who posts a lot here on LB, had a similar situation. It did not even take her as long as me to get things resolved also via CEO office. She posted all her updates.
In Loulou's case it was pre-existing medical condition.
In my case it was my occupation and self employed status.
You mentioned you were self employed.
Which sort of occupation? It may be helpful.
Though they say they cover some cases of self employment, however it often involves so called "onerous" conditions, which should be clearly explained to you prior to your agreement, which, of course was never done with most of the cases I heard about.
We have to look into your self employment angle.


About small claim court.
I mentioned that another friend of ours, L'pool, after going through similar disgusting experience, informed Santander that she was taking them to court.
They did not give it at first and acted like it did not matter.
You see, people are often bluffing and just threaten, not really thinking of doing that. Court might sounds scary.
Really, small claim court is nothing to be afraid of for us, we have nothing to lose.
However, it is a lot to worry about for the banks.
L'pool, our expert, can explain all the details and give a great advice.
The date was set for September, and than they offered to L'pool to settle out of court, repaying everything and more for distress etc. L'pool is wonderful and offers help in that direction, should it come to that. Her posts are very helpful.
Everybody here, on LB, is fantastic.


You have best support


Victoria

[Celticbhoy]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Victoria,

Thanks for that. Just about survived the driving lesson and the trip to Asda ! Genworth sound like a bunch of belters right enough ! I have had a look at the complaint letters. With your posts and others I can see that from FCA rules they basically don't have a leg to stand on. Ah well, if Di is ok giving me her letter, I will get my compliant away to them and see where we go from there.

Can you believe I was actually going to transfer some of our business banking to them. By the way we are involved in asbestos surveying/ light removal.

its great that they finally paid after contacting the CEO. I'm sure that I read that Ms Botin was assigned to some government project or another. Did you know that the Botin family apparently own several other banks in Spain. As they say, you couldn't write it !!

i have been hauling things out of my loft wholesale as I also had a House of Fraser card. They were a massive store where I live. Half of the city must have had one !!!

i took it out in 1998. I had complained to Santander and as usual got nowhere. I got the whole FLA thing thrown at me ( we are members etc take ur compliant there !).To be honest, I had so much going on in my life, I am ashamed to say that I didn't look at it too closely.

I have now done so. Guess what iI can see the agreement is signed on behalf of GE Capital Bank Ltd. From the posts on LB, I can see that they were one of the first major fines.

No sure where this takes me. The fine I understand is for post 2005 cases, so not sure if I have a direct line of recourse to FOS.

A couple of thoughts really, does anyone know if Santander took the over the whole responsibility when presumably they bought the book from GE ? If not then maybe my complaint is to GE. I am thinking that probably GE didn't come under ABI at the time, so maybe I need to ask Santander who was the insurer/underwriter at the time and them approach them ? Confused dot com !

If you of anyone one out there has a clue to the puzzle, if they could let me know that would be great.

Thanks again.

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Celticbhoy,
My understating is that they, Santander, did take over the whole responsibility.
At the same time they try to avoid any responsibility.


I saw my old agreements when it was GE Capital, now Santander and yes, Genworth was their insurer then, definitely in the case for my House of Fraser card.
So, the card you are talking about is not House of Fraser? It is another additional case with Santander?


You know you can reopen your case with House of Fraser card at any time. You did not miss your boat.

Go for it!

It might be worth mentioning that luckily you discovered on time how they treat their customers and made "an informed decision" whom NOT to bank with.


The thought occured.
It is about your occupation.
Does that mean that you have some periods when you do not work, that your work is not regular?

If so, then, I think we can prove that you could not have possibly made a successful claim due to not only your self employed status, but your occupation.
Every PPI has an exclusion, stating that they will not cover you if for your occupation unemployment is a regular feature.
If that so and you can show them that at the time of your application that was your status (and as I understand it, still is), then you can prove that you could not make a successful claim. Then they will have no choice, but to uphold.
It might be helpful to order, just in case, your NI contributions to show class 2 for self employed. To have it ready in case they ask for it, hoping that you do not have it.


Once you have the letter from Di, after tailoring it for your case, you can file it with Genworth.
Regardless you can still at the same time to email to the CEO.
One does not exclude the other.
In my case with Santander, after I emailed to the CEO, at the same time the Ombudsman themselves filed on my behalf complaint with Genworth (I was going to use the magic letter from our Di, but some very nice adjudicator from the FOS was so supportive, that he filed from the Ombudsman on my behalf Such nice things happen sometime ).
The FOS knew that I was dealing with the CEO myself and they were very encouraging.
So, you can do both at the same time.


About GE Capital fines. Yes, they were after 2005. In one of Santander's letters, I think it was to L'pool, they wrote that fines were for post 2005, implying that before 2005 everything was just fine and perfect with GE Capital.
They are a piece of work. But we were not born yesterday.


Let's see if your occupation is what we need to nail them


V

[di30]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hiya

Amazing info and advice as always from our Adorable Victoria. x

Celticbhoy

As well as you continuing your battle with Satan lol, I shall also pm you shortly with the letter for you, you will get there! :tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Thank you for your kind words, my dear friend, our dazzling star Di
Your magic letter still might do the trick for Celticbhoy.

It seems like self employed surveying can be under the category of work where unemployment is a regular feature.
Worth looking into.
As we all learnt, if we can show that it would be impossible or very difficult to make a successful claim, than there is the best chance for a successful result.

One way or another...

V

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Celticbhoy, whatever route you take, may be all of them at the same time, I suggest to get in touch with your MP. A Member of Parliament can do a representation on your behalf, can write a letter on your behalf and also can approach a relevant minister. MP is a very good "driving force" for a company to behave
It won't hurt to put your local MP in the picture, considering that you have an ongoing very bad experience with that Santander.

Best,

V

[marshallka]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Just a little bit of info for any BARCLAYS Firstplus early claims.

If you are going down the underwriter route and it involves Cassidy Davis on early Payment protection documents HEADED FIRSTPLUS, it states if you need to claim your cashback or make a claim to write to a firm called

Miller Firstline

Miller Firstline actually went into administration in 2003 but Firstplus still directed me here in 2008. When I went to FOS a few years ago they directed me to first make a complaint to Cassdy Davis and then LLoyds of London and then eventually they told me that they all had no connection (something about agents!!).

I have been googling ever since and just found this

Miller Firstline has succeeded in winning an extended three-year
contract from second mortgage house Firstplus to provide a full claims
handling service. Miller Firstline provides life, accident, sickness and
unemployment cover on behalf of the company in partnership with insurer
Cassidy Davis Underwriting.
This was written on 28th October 1999.
http://www.postonline.co.uk/post/new...tline-contract

Now when I complained to LLoyds of London they told me that they were in talks with FOS as to whether there was any agency chain but nothing was sorted.

How can they not all be connected when the above statement about Miller Firstline and Cassidy Davis says that they were contracted to Firstplus.

I hope this helps anyone with an early Firstplus complaint who are told by Cassidy Davis (now Jubilee Insurance) that they have no liability. Surely they do.

[marshallka]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Here is an extract from my complaint letter to Lloyds of London (as Cassidy Davis NOW Jubilee Insurance would not accept any liability).

"I note your comment that an underwriter has a responsibility to the policyholder in respect of the conduct of the sale, even if the cover has been sold by a third party. This is correct in instances where there is a direct link between the underwriter and the seller or broker, in other words if the intermediary is acting as an agent for the underwriter.

Bearing this in mind, Lloyd’s and the Financial Ombudsman Service are at present conducting an ongoing investigation as to whether there were any contractual agreements in existence between Lloyd’s, First Plus and the seller/broker before First plus became members of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) in November 2001 and therefore regulated in their own right.




Does a direct contract between LENDER, FIRSTPLUS the underwriter and the administrator not mean agent?

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Of course it does. It is logical.
Thank you very much for that. Excellent information, which, I am sure will help a lot of people.
It is very frustrating that they try to deny a connection, which is obvious, and therefore avoid liability.


Thank you again.


Victoria

[marshallka]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Victoria

I added a little more after you posted so have a read and see what you think?

[marshallka]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

And as Lloyds were under compulsory jurisdiction at FOS surely they should also have joint liability in allowing an unregulated broker (who has now gone into administration in most cases surprise surprise!!) to rip us off or an unregulated lender.

Its hardly treating us fairly is it? Also some of these companies allowed to sell these rip off policies aren't even in this country so we have no protection from the LAW of England and Wales also as stated on the policy. Surely again they had a duty to us there too.

Do insurers/underwriters have to accept liability then even when a broker was involved if the broker has liquidated prior to 2005 (so no recourse with FSCS) and the Lender was unregulated? What relationship do you have to prove with this?

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Spot on, Marshallka. I agree.

Thank you for bringing it on.
So often we read that it was not possible to establish a connection etc., we are like a ping pong ball between different companies, every one denying liability. A total mess, confused dot com... It can't be the case, somebody is responsible. You are so right, they do have duty to us.
Well spotted.

V

[L'pool64]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi Folks,

I have asked this question before, with no response but, I am wondering if our friend and colleague Fred, could help with an answer. Apologies if I am putting you on the spot Fred....... It is only my intention to give people who have, on the face of it been mis sold, a further avenue to try, without even more hassle!!

When we refer to relationships between companies, underwriters etc, no one mentions ongoing re numeration.
To explain what I mean,
To enable one company to place business with another, take for example GE Capitol and Genworth, an agreement would have had to be drawn up. This would have stated how much business one company would have expected to place with the other and the likely re numeration that could be expected. No company places business with another, without a perceived financial advantage. Even the various Lloyds syndicates would have expected to make money/profit of some sort. So if we assume that everybody got paid when a PPI policy was sold, is this not enough to say that this payment constitutes a "relationship"?

Now, we all know that there is a relationship between Santander/Genworth, I have just picked that one as it is easy but, there are many others, that leave "customers" at a dead end, with no where to go.

this doesn't affect me in any way but, the answer seems, to me, so very simple.


P s it would not be the first time that I have been called an idiot!!!!!!!!!!!

very best regards,

:beagle:Xxxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

Hi, dear friend L'pool. You are one of the smartest ladies I know


What you say makes a perfect sense. I did not have a clue about numeration. How very interesting. There is so much to learn! I love our LB forum!

Let's see what Fred will say.


Thank you, L'pool. Lol.


Xxx

[marshallka]

Re: Underwriter success PPI

We all assume all parties to the PPI product profited from this but FOS seems to be of the view there was no relationship between lender, broker and insurer in the case of LLoyds of London when I complained some years ago. I disagree. How can having a contract (Cassidy Davis now JUBILEE) not be a relationship in the context that FOS meant? Am I missing something here? I am so far behind on this?

Like I say, when I made my complaint to FOS making the underwriter responsible for joint liability, the FOS eventually (after a lengthy time) told me there was not any relationship? Did FOS make a mistake?