#PPI claim for Currys purchase from 2006 - Strange reply from HFC Bank

[stroke a badger]

In 2006 my wife purchased from Currys a Tv for the spare room, at the time of purchase the sales assistant kindly added PPI to the sale but my wife can not recall why. She certainly would have not asked for it so i can only assume she was told it was necessary. The Tv was paid for under a "buy no pay later" deal offered by HFC Bank and the outstanding balance was cleared with in the designated timeframe.

 

In comparison to some claims we are not talking mega bucks here, less than £300 in fact, however i feel the PPI was missold as my wife was not given the opportunity to refuse PPI as it would seem it was forced upon her. HFC have been asked to refund the premiums paid but have stated that as the purchase was made on 30/11/06 they are not liable and any such claim should be made to Dixons Group who Currys are a part of.

 

Is the date of 30/11/06 significant in anyway or is this HFC passing the buck?

[dirkuberpower]

You are complaing about a ppi mis-sale. The sale was done by currys at their shop, so you complain to them not hfc.

[postggj]

You are complaing about a ppi mis-sale. The sale was done by currys at their shop, so you complain to them not hfc.

 

not if its included within a finance package

 

its the finance company you deal with

 

ask youself

 

who do the repayments go to

 

dixons or hfc

 

dixons are acting on behalf of the finance company

 

ppi sales became regulated after july 2005

so unsure on the date given above

[dirkuberpower]

Like I said, complain to who sold it to you.

I had a look on money saving expert and theres a lot more information on there about Currys' ppi complaints.

 

Send your complaint letter to

DSG Retail Ltd.

Maryland’s Avenue

Hamel Hampstead

Herts.

HP2 7TG

[postggj]

ime not getting into a slanging match but take it from some one who has done six, yes six ppi reclaims and won them all, for which four took n1 court claims from myself

 

please supply the relevant case law or statute law that states you have to do the reclaim through point of sale please

[dirkuberpower]

I had this arguement the same as this on a previous post, people just wont accept they are wrong. Well done roonaldo18.

 

I googled and found the link too

 

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/product_news/insurance/payment_protection_insurance_/ppi_changes/index.shtml

[postggj]

quote

 

If you have a complaint about the circumstances of the sale of your PPI policy or the suitability of the product for you, you should first complain to the firm that sold it to you.

 

i agree on that point

you then have to give them eight weeks to give a full and final response to your complaint which will be bog off, you then take it to the fos who can only advise a financial institution to redress, if the company still says no

 

then what

 

may i ask what you do when the ppi has been included in the agreement (front loaded)

the total amount of credit is then misstated and invalidates the agreement

 

to say the finance company has no say in this is nonsense

 

been there

done that

got the tshirt

[stroke a badger]

Hi Postggj,

 

Thanks for the advice. I have helped 8 friends claim back PPI missold on Credit cards and personal loans as well as a couple of my own so i'm not exactly wet behind the ears but this is the first claim i have this scenario. I'm of the opinion it is the company who provided the finance who should be made accountable as it was included as part of the finance package.

 

Whilst i fully appreciate the help given by others and no disrespect is meant but please can we stick to the topic being discussed.

[dirkuberpower]

may i ask what you do when the ppi has been included in the agreement (front loaded)

the total amount of credit is then misstated and invalidates the agreement

 

 

Single premium PPI is bad, it does not invalidate the agreement as the loan is still enforceable. It makes the full costs of the PPI undisclosed. However, post 2005 (i doubt in this case) there would be a demands and needs with a statement of price, if this is present it usually or should disclose the interest of the PPI and full costs of it.

[dirkuberpower]

. I'm of the opinion it is the company who provided the finance who should be made accountable as it was included as part of the finance package.

.

 

as already discussed its not, see the link to the FSA website. You have already had a response from HFC informing you that Currys / Dixons Group is responsible for the sale, which is correct.

[postggj]

single premium ppi is bad, it does not invalidate the agreement as the loan is still enforceable. It makes the full costs of the ppi undisclosed. However, post 2005 (i doubt in this case) there would be a demands and needs with a statement of price, if this is present it usually or should disclose the interest of the ppi and full costs of it.

 

it does invalidate the agreement as a secret commision would have been paid to the salesman and not disclosed to the borrower at point of sale

 

wilson v hurstanger

[postggj]

:-)Currys would only use one provider.

 

IVE KNOW THEM USE THREE

 

HFC

LOMBARD

THE FUNDING CORP

CA

 

I KNOW AS I USED TO HAVE A CHARGE CARD FROM ALL THREE AT ONE TIME

 

QUOTE

 

You just wont get that kind of decision if you go the fos route.

 

WELL AT LEAST WE ARE STARTING TO AGREE ON THIS AT LAST

Edited May 2, 2011 by postggj

[MARTIN3030]

Off topic posts removed.

Please lets keep posts constructive and that help the op here.

[dx100uk]

please keep things civil gentlemen.

 

HFC is on the agreement & HFC will repay you!

 

they pulled this stunt with 2 of my claims to put the FOS off the scent.

 

FOS are now back at HFC's heels.

 

the conclusion was this....

 

if you look on the agreement, you will see the PPI box already has a typred 'X' in it.

 

these were pre printed and issued to DGS stores

 

when a loan was taken out

 

the details were checked with HFC over the phone

and then the member of staff put the pre-printed agreement in the printer and it got printed with the punters details and was signed in STORE

 

all the forms sent out with the 'X' pre - typed

 

game over HFC!

 

by the way ... those two are a double act i've had run-ins with before.

 

GO GET HFC!

 

dx

[stroke a badger]

The previous posts got a little heated so lets start again

 

To summarise

 

My wife had a finance account with HFC opened 2006 to cover the cost of a TV bought from a local branch of Currys. At the time the account was opened PPI was applied to the account and it was implied it was mandatory. The account ran full term and has since been closed.

 

In addition to this my wife had another account with HFC dating back to 2000 for the purchase of a TV which was also opened at the same branch and again PPI was applied to the loan and as the X in the box was pre-printed i would hazard a guess she was told it was again mandatory.

 

I have two questions;

 

1 - Am i correct in thinking as the contract was between my Wife and HFC, Currys was simply an agent acting on the behalf of HFC, therefore any liability sits firmly with HFC not Currys.

2 - There is no time limit to PPI claims

[ims21]

The previous posts got a little heated so lets start again

 

To summarise

 

My wife had a finance account with HFC opened 2006 to cover the cost of a TV bought from a local branch of Currys. At the time the account was opened PPI was applied to the account and it was implied it was mandatory. The account ran full term and has since been closed.

 

In addition to this my wife had another account with HFC dating back to 2000 for the purchase of a TV which was also opened at the same branch and again PPI was applied to the loan and as the X in the box was pre-printed i would hazard a guess she was told it was again mandatory.

 

I have two questions;

 

1 - Am i correct in thinking as the contract was between my Wife and HFC, Currys was simply an agent acting on the behalf of HFC, therefore any liability sits firmly with HFC not Currys. Correct

2 - There is no time limit to PPI claims Correct

 

ims

[stroke a badger]

Thanks ins,

 

I thought that was the case but thought it best to double check anyway. What is really embarrassing is that we allowed this to happen, in that we are naive enough at the time not to question their motives

[dx100uk]

welcome back stroke

lets get you sorted this time!

 

dx

[ims21]

Hi

 

Yes I know...hindsight is a wonderful thing isn't it?

 

But don't fret.....you're not alone.....you can tell by the number of threads in the ppi forum that there are a great many people who have been too trusting of banks, including me.

 

I would certainly never ever trust a bank again and it really is time that the OFT got involved and investigated banks for all sorts of practices. But I fear that we will be waiting a long long time for that miracle to happen.

 

Regards

 

ims

[stroke a badger]

Thanks DX