Mis-sold PPI with Mallard Vehicle Finance

[Fred_Funk]

Just about to start a claim, for my girlfriend, against Mallard Vehicle Finance; it relates to the PPI policy they [mis-]sold her when they provided the finance for a new car in 2004.

 

Having already had a couple of successful mis-sold PPI claims, I've a good fair idea of how I'm going to proceed and will be citing all the usual arguments, eg my girlfriend was encouraged to believe the purchase of the PPI policy would heighten the probability of her getting the loan, she would, in any case, have benefitted from full sick pay, for up to six months, or a redundancy settlement should the situation have arisen, etc, etc.

 

Nevertheless, there are one or two things, which haven't cropped up in my previous claims, on which I am not entirely clear and would, therefore, appreciate the thoughts of my fellow CAGgers.

 

[1] The policy dates from 2004, ie before the sale of insurance was regulated by the FSA. However, while the insurance was sold by Mallard, the company which provided it [st Andrew's Group] was a member of the General Standards Insurance Council [GISC]. This being the case, it's my understanding, it was incumbent on Mallard to observe GISC guidelines and it's within the FOS's remit to investigate any alleged failure to do so.

 

[2] My girlfriend was born with a condition which affects her back - she can easily obtain a statement from her doctor to confirm this - which may well have meant that the policy wouldn't have paid out. She was not, at any stage, asked about any pre-exisiting medical conditions and, therefore, there was no discussion of this which, it seems to me, is clearly at odds with provisions 3.2 & 3.3 of the GISC code.

 

[3.2]

We will make sure, as far as possible, that the products and services we offer you will match your requirements …

 

If it is practical, we will identify your needs by getting relevant information from you.

We will offer you products and services to meet your needs, and match any requirements you have.

If we cannot match your requirements, we will explain the differences in the product or service that we can offer you.

If it is not practical to match all your requirements, we will give you enough information so you can make an informed decision about your insurance.

 

[3.3]

We will explain all the main features of the products and services that we offer, including …

 

any significant or unusual restrictions or exclusions;

any significant conditions or obligations which you must meet.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/rules-codes.html#x

 

[3] In addition, her purchase of a new car was prompted by an accident in which her previous vehicle was written off. The dealer was unable to provide finance but, instead, put Mallard in touch with her. When they called her to discuss this possibility, she was still off work and in bed recovering from the accident; she distinctly remembers discussing with the rep as it was her birthday and he said he hoped he would be able to provide the finance for the car and cheer her up on her big day. She has an independent medical report - commissioned by her solicitor - which details her injuries and refers to a 'possibility of long-term neck pain'.

 

Again, I would have thought that this would almost certainly have affected the likelihood of the policy ever paying out and - given the Mallard rep with who she dealt was aware she was recovering from an accident - must add to the case that the policy was mis-sold.

 

[4] While I could go to the FOS, see [1] above, I'm contemplating going straight down the court route and, at the same time, asking for compound interest in restitution [on the basis of Sempra]. I'm conscious that the FSA's principles aren't actionable in court and that I would instead have to rely on its insurance conduct-of-business [iCOB] rules.

 

Mindful that ICOB 4.3.1R requires...

 

An insurance intermediary must take reasonable steps to ensure that, if in the course of insurance mediation activities it makes any personal recommendation to a customer to buy or sell a non-investment insurance contract, the personal recommendation is suitable for the customer's demands and needs at the time the personal recommendation is made.

 

… I would assume that I could make a good case but would, as ever, appreciate the thoughts of others.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[dx100uk]

pers

i think many many people are digging far too deep into the whole PPI issue

 

fill out the FOS complaint form and put it in to WHOM YOU PAID THE PCM TOO.

 

you'll soon findout if its going to be diffficult

 

then jump those hurdles when they appear.

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

pers

i think many many people are digging far too deep into the whole PPI issue

 

fill out the FOS complaint form and put it in to WHOM YOU PAID THE PCM TOO.

 

you'll soon findout if its going to be diffficult

 

then jump those hurdles when they appear.

 

 

 

dx

 

My intention is, in the first instance, to do exactly as you say.

 

I'm hoping that the threat of court action - if that's the route we do elect to take - will be enough to make 'em cough. What I don't want to do when I am, IMO, in a position of strength is to make any ill-conceived threats which encourage them to think I don't know what I'm talking about and, as such, worth taking on.

[dx100uk]

an fos complaint form makes no court threats

 

again you are jumping the gun

 

put in a complaint using the FOS form to the OC

 

and include an SOC as per the FOS PDF that details the way to the calculate the redress they recommend.

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

an fos complaint form makes no court threats

 

again you are jumping the gun

 

put in a complaint using the FOS form to the OC

 

and include an SOC as per the FOS PDF that details the way to the calculate the redress they recommend.

 

dx

 

God give me strength! ;-)

 

In your first post on this thread you say some people are 'digging far too deep into the whole PPi issue', you then accuse me of 'jumping the gun'... which one is it?!

 

For the record, I'm well aware an FOS complaint form makes no court threats and can't understand why you might think otherwise. My intention is to write to the finance company, enclosing a completed FOS questionnaire, and mentioning the possibility of my pursuing them to court and, at the same time, seeking compound interest in restitution if they don't play ball.

[dx100uk]

both

i dont think you should be jumping to the gun by thinking or stating you are prepared to go to court - on your first letter

 

KISS

 

keep it simple stupid, i think is now the way to go on PPI issues.

 

then start firing arrows when we know the OC's stance.

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

Here's the letter I'm intending to send off with my girlfriend's completed FOS questionnaire.

 

Dear Sir/Madam

 

Payement protection policy no: XXXXXXXXX

Hire purchase agreement no: XXXXXX

 

I am writing with regard to the above payment protection policy you sold me in April 2004.

 

Having sought legal advice, I believe that I was mis-sold this policy for the reasons detailed in the enclosed questionnaire.

 

In particular, I was encouraged to believe that purchasing it was in my best interests. However, the policy exclusions weren’t explained to me at any stage and I was, therefore, unable to make an informed decision as to whether the insurance was appropriate. I am now of the opinion it wasn’t as, quite apart from anything else, I was suffering from a pre-existing medical condition [XXXXXX XXXXXXXX] and, in addition, had recently been injured in a car crash but was not made aware of the policy exclusions which could have applied in such circumstances.

 

I now require a refund of all the premiums paid to the policy, plus the additional interest charged to me as a result of the PPI. I also require restitution of the time value of the wrongfully debited sums by way of an award of compound interest calculated at the interest rate you charged me, ie 25.3 per cent [on the basis of Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue Anor [2007] UKHL 34].

 

I calculate the contractual interest element as £X,XXX.XX [to May 31, 2011], making a grand total of £X,XXX.XX - see enclosed spreadsheet.

 

I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment - by cheque, directly to me.

 

If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe these deadline are more than sufficient for a large company such as yours, with dedicated staff and departments.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

 

 

XXXXXX XXXXX

 

As ever, I'd appreciate your guys thoughts, especially with regard to: [1] Playing hardball and threatening court action at such an early juncture; and [2] Asking for compound interest [on the basis of Sempra].

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[ims21]

Hi Fred

 

This is your first complaint letter to them. Accordingly I would remove the 14 day bit and the reference to legals. I say this on the basis that the initial approach is just a preliminary letter for the bank/finance company to investigate your claim and according to the rules they will have 8 weeks to investigate and give you a decision.

 

In my opinion you can do the 14 day lba after that. The letter you have posted above seems to be more of an lba rather than a preliminary letter.

 

Nothing to stop you going for Compound Interest ....see what they come back with. (Bet it won't be favourable though).

 

Other opinions will no doubt follow

 

ims

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Fred

 

This is your first complaint letter to them. Accordingly I would remove the 14 day bit and the reference to legals. I say this on the basis that the initial approach is just a preliminary letter for the bank/finance company to investigate your claim and according to the rules they will have 8 weeks to investigate and give you a decision.

 

In my opinion you can do the 14 day lba after that. The letter you have posted above seems to be more of an lba rather than a preliminary letter.

 

Nothing to stop you going for Compound Interest ....see what they come back with. (Bet it won't be favourable though).

 

Other opinions will no doubt follow

 

ims

 

Thanks for sharing you're thoughts, it's appreciated.

 

Be that as it may, my understanding - and I only know what I've learnt on here - is that the eight weeks is entirely arbitrary and, in any case, relates to how long a financial institution has to respond as and when the FOS is involved.

 

If, like me, you're inclined to avoid the FOS and instead go down the court route you can, as I understand it, impose your own timescales.

 

Take a look at this…

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?738-Get-your-PPI-money-now

 

… you will, I reckon, find it interesting and, more to the point, understand the rational for the approach I'm contemplating.

 

Fred_Funk

Edited May 31, 2011 by Fred_Funk

[ims21]

Thanks for sharing you're thoughts, it's appreciated.

 

Be that as it may, my understanding - and I only know what I've learnt on here - is that the eight weeks is entirely arbitrary and, in any case, relates to how long a financial institution has to respond as and when the FOS is involved.

 

If, like me, you're inclined to avoid the FOS and instead go down the court route you can, as I understand it, impose your own timescales.

 

Take a look at this…

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?738-Get-your-PPI-money-now

 

… you will, I reckon, find it interesting and, more to the point, understand the rational for the approach I'm contemplating.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?738-Get-your-PPI-money-now

 

 

Hi Fred

 

Thank you for the link and had already seen that.

 

One thing that I am always mindful of is the view of being reasonable. IMHO (and it is just my opinion) for a court route it is partly about building up a case showing that the claimant has been reasonable both in the claim, interest etc. etc. and in the timescales offered to the defendant to put things right.

 

Believe me, I do fully appreciate where you are coming from especially as you appear to have a solid case. Maybe I'm just a little more cautious.

 

As I say, just my thoughts on it.

 

ims

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Fred

 

Thank you for the link and had already seen that.

 

One thing that I am always mindful of is the view of being reasonable. IMHO (and it is just my opinion) for a court route it is partly about building up a case showing that the claimant has been reasonable both in the claim, interest etc. etc. and in the timescales offered to the defendant to put things right.

 

Believe me, I do fully appreciate where you are coming from especially as you appear to have a solid case. Maybe I'm just a little more cautious.

 

As I say, just my thoughts on it.

 

ims

 

Thanks, again, for your thoughts.

 

Mindful of what you've said, I think I might give 'em a month - as opposed to a fortnight - to 'accept, unconditionally, my request in principle and let me know a date by which I will receive payment - by cheque, directly to me'. ;-)

 

However, I'm not, at this point, minded to take out the references to the possibility of court action. My fear is that unless I'm explicit about this they'll assume my intention is to go down the FOS route and be in no rush to resolve my complaint.

 

What does everyone reckon?!

[ims21]

Thanks Fred

 

I too would be interested to hear other views

 

regards

 

ims

[dx100uk]

i'm with IM here

 

as PPI goes at present

they should be writing to you refunding it automatically

but we know they wont.

 

eitherway, i think it unwise to try and go outside any 'recognised' time constraints.

 

pers. i'd give them 8 weeks. and not even mebtion the fact that court is your option. nor p'haps even the FOS/FSCS etc etc

they are your cannon balls - don't fire them yet.

 

dx

 

 

dx

[MrZ]

Hi Fred,

 

I think dx and ims are giving you sound advice. Youre best bet is to keep is simple. Your first letter should be very brief. Basically all you need to do is fill in the form, and write a short cover letter. Avoid anything that may come back to bite you later. You already know what stragey or plan of attack you can take. There is no need to reveal your hand so early on.

 

Send a simple letter void of any legal threats, or threats of the FOS etc. Simply state you have enclosed the completed questionaire, you expect a letter of acknowledgement, and your contact details etc.

 

Then let them respond in the first instance. From there you bring out the guns if needed. But again, I would keep your initial contact and complaint very short and simple. If you come across as ready for a fight, they may just give you one. Let them hang themselves first.

[steven4064]

I have a couple of comments - random order:

 

1. the 8 weeks is entirely random but is the timescale for a bank to respond toa complaint (not to reolve it ) set by the FOS. IMHO it is far too long, but Hey Ho!

 

2. courts expect you to be reasonable. I think you can argue that you are being reasonable if you comply with the relevant pre-action protocol, which says that you must give 14 days for resolution. We have always been far more reasonable by giving 14 bays on a prelim and a further 14 days on the LBA.

 

3. I think you need to decide on your overall strategy - FOS or court. I think the approach is a bit of each ATM.

 

4. you wouldn't mention s69 interest at this point as that is only awarded post a court claim. However, I think you are right to mention interest in restitution at this point as that is a diferent issue (although related in the courts' mind as s69 is a sort of interest for your trouble)

[Fred_Funk]

Thanks to all those who have contributed on this thread, your input is much appreciated.

 

If I may would just like to clarify a few of the points made by steven4064…

 

2. courts expect you to be reasonable. I think you can argue that you are being reasonable if you comply with the relevant pre-action protocol, which says that you must give 14 days for resolution. We have always been far more reasonable by giving 14 bays on a prelim and a further 14 days on the LBA.

 

This letter would, in effect, be my prelim; I've said I'll give them 14 days to respond at which point I'll send 'em an LBA giving 'em a further 14 days before initiating court action. This being the case, I take it you'd agree I'm not being unreasonable?!

 

3. I think you need to decide on your overall strategy - FOS or court. I think the approach is a bit of each ATM.

 

I dare say you're right but not sure how my approach comes across as 'a bit of each'. Can you elaborate?

 

4. You wouldn't mention s69 interest at this point as that is only awarded post a court claim. However, I think you are right to mention interest in restitution at this point as that is a diferent issue (although related in the courts' mind as s69 is a sort of interest for your trouble)

 

I haven't mentioned s69 interest [have I] or are you merely suggesting I was right not to… once again, clarification would be much appreciated.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[steven4064]

I think 14 days is reasonable. 28 days most certainly is.

 

'Bit of each' - 14 days notice usually goes with a court claim not FOS, that's all

 

s69 - I was merely agreeing that it is a good idea to mention iterest in restitution at this point whereas you wouldn't do that for s69 interest.

[Fred_Funk]

Just getting going again on this and would welcome any further thoughts. Thanks.

[ims21]

Hi Fred

 

Just tried to reply to your PM but your inbox is full.

 

Do you want the compound interest sheet for credit card/revolving credit or 8% Stat Int Sheet for loan account ppi.

 

I ask the question because it may not be for this thread....you didn't say!

 

Regards

 

ims

[Fred_Funk]

Hi Fred

 

Just tried to reply to your PM but your inbox is full.

 

Do you want the compound interest sheet for credit card/revolving credit or 8% Stat Int Sheet for loan account ppi.

 

I ask the question because it may not be for this thread....you didn't say!

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Hi ims!

 

Thanks for the message - just cleared some space in my inbox especially for you!

 

As it happens, my PM didn't relate to this thread but to a claim for mis-sold PPI on an old Barclaycard. That said, I'd quite like both sheets if that's okay.

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

[ims21]

Hi ims!

 

Thanks for the message - just cleared some space in my inbox especially for you!

 

As it happens, my PM didn't relate to this thread but to a claim for mis-sold PPI on an old Barclaycard. That said, I'd quite like both sheets if that's okay.

 

Thanks again

Fred_Funk

 

Hi Fred

 

Yeah...didn't know which thread or anything......

 

However, here's the two of them

 

Regards

 

ims

CISheet.xls

StatIntSheet.xls

[Fred_Funk]

Finally had a reply from Mallard.

 

 

 

Clearly, a stock response and, moreover, pretty much along the lines of what I'd anticipated. Still adamant the PPi was mis-sold - see post #7 for an outline of the reasons why - and that, ultimately, we will win but looks like we could be in for a bit of a fight first.

 

With that in mind, I'd welcome any thoughts on the letter from Mallard and the best line of attack from here on in [as you might envisage, I already have a fair few of my own but before I post 'em on here am keen to find out whether they are the same as my fellow CAGgers].

 

As ever, thanks in anticipation

Fred_Funk

[ims21]

They have given their final response so its fos or court

 

ims

[Fred_Funk]

They have given their final response so its fos or court

 

ims

 

Absolutely, appreciate that. Was just wondering if anyone detected any particular weaknesses in their defence.

[ims21]

Oh sorry

 

Immediately something on page 2 jumps out at me.

 

Am I close to where you are?

 

Regards

 

ims