Options where PPI has been mis-sold and the lender has gone out of business

[Jack Sparkes]

Hi guys

 

I've made a number of successful PPI claims and know the drill pretty well. However, I have one outstanding claim to submit before the August deadline which, I fear, is going to be a little more complicated. Hence, here I am seeking your assistance.

 

Essentially, it's like this... way back in 1998 I opened an account with Cofidis, which was taken over by Call-4-Cash in 2000; the latter was a subsidiary of London Scottish Finance, which went out of business in 2008.

 

I had an account with Cofidis / Call-4-Cash for six or seven years, during which time I paid a four-figure sum [circa £25 per month] in PPI. Having not become aware this insurance may have been mis-sold until after London Scottish Finance had gone out of business, I attempted to claim from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme only to be advised: 'It appears from your correspondence that your insurance policy began May 2004. Unfortunately this means that your claim for compensation falls outside of our jurisdiction.'

 

At this point I assumed all was lost but now believe that may not be the case. Firstly, I am led to believe that in instances where a company to which an individual paid PPI no longer exists it may be possible to make a claim against the insurer / underwriter – initially this was CIGNA and then it was Pinnacle – but would appreciate any further clarification anyone is able to offer.

 

Secondly, notwithstanding the [para] above, I'm in little doubt more than 50 per cent of my PPI went in commission to the lender. Given the lender no longer exists, does this mean I can lodge a claim with the FSCS on this basis? My understanding is that is does and that, in this instance, the fact that the insurance began before May 2004 is not relevant but, again, I would appreciate any clarification and / or guidance anyone is able to offer.

 

Thanks in anticipation

Jack

[dx100uk]

send the underwriters either an FOS Customer questionnaire or an SAR.

they would have been regulated under GISC or API and whomever now owns the underwriters should cough up.

 

lots of threads here already on your various players and PPI reclaiming

[Jack Sparkes]

Will send the underwriters an FOS customer questionnaire shortly. In the meantime, would be interested in any thoughts anyone might have on either of the attached policy documents and, in particular, anything which might add weight to my case that the PPI was mis-sold. Thanks.

Cofidis Limited Protection Plan-1-merged_compressed (1).pdf Pinnacle_Insurance_PLC_Copy_Policy_Document_compressed.pdf

[dx100uk]

an sar would be better1st

 

why was it missold?

 

[Jack Sparkes]

Hi dx100uk [and anyone else taking an interest in this thread]

 

Your input is appreciated. However, I remain to be convinced there's a great deal to be gained from putting in a SAR. I have a copy of the original agreement, which makes a cursory reference to the insurance policy, as well as copies of both the insurance policies and all my statements. In any case, I can't send a SAR to the original lender, who has long since gone out of business, and I can't see either of the underwriters sending me anything I haven't already got.

 

As regards why the policy was mis-sold, I think there are a number of reasons including [but not necessarily limited to]:

 

[1] The direct cash reserve application form referred to 'the special Cofidis Payment Protection Plan'. Use of the word special implied the plan was likely to be of more benefit than it actually was;

 

[2] My request for a direct cash reserve was made via a postal application form. While this form may have included some basic information about the aforementioned payment protection plan, it did not include full terms & conditions. More to the point, I was not subsequently sent any terms & conditions by the insurers, less still advised that there was a cooling-off period during which I could cancel the insurance;

 

[3] Notwithstanding the fact, that I didn't have sight of the full terms & conditions of the insurance policy until after I'd paid off the account in full, nowhere in the policy does it detail the cost of the insurance;

 

[4] Similarly, the original policy states: 'You are eligible for cover if, on the starting date, the following applies: You are working and have been continuously for the immediately preceding 6 months.' In actual fact, after a short break, I had started a new job a little more than five months before making an application for a direct cash reserve;

 

[5] My direct cash reserve account was opened in 1998. However, I was not made aware that in 2002 the original insurer was replaced by another one as a result of which the terms & conditions differed; 

 

[6] At one stage, I was paying circa £40 a month, or £500 a year, for the insurance. Given the minimum payment from which I would have benefitted from – even if, mindful of [4] it had paid out – was just £100 a month and, at the time, I was in pretty secure employment you have to question its value to me;

 

[7] In addition, I would have been well looked after by my employer had I been absent from work through illness, or made redundant. Essentially, any benefit I might have derived from the insurance was unlikely to justify the considerable cost. However, having not had sight of the terms & conditions, nor the APR, it was only some considerable time later I became cognizant of this.

 

As ever, any thoughts anyone has with regard to the above – mindful that, as mentioned previously, this complaint dates back to the late 1990s, ie pre 2005, and the original lender no longer exists and so I'm going to have to go after the insurer – would be extremely welcome.

Thanks in anticipation
Jack Sparkes

Edited June 17, 2019 by Jack Sparkes

[dx100uk]

it wasnt clear you had all the statements so probably wont get anything of usefulness from the underwriters other than tipping them of prior to your FOS CQ..

i cant see anything concrete in your 1-7
the postal application form would be classed as a non advised sale.
it would be interesting to see it please
i will  guess there must have been something to agree to PPI and you must have agreed to it?

your only chance here might be a vague ref to your employer benefits far outweighing the benefits and why would you have needed it.

dx

[Jack Sparkes]

I'd have thought [2], [3], [4] and [5] were fairly solid reasons for claiming the PPI was mis-sold. Would be interested to know why you think otherwise.

 

In any case, postal application attached below. As ever, would welcome any thoughts.

Cofidis application form-min.pdf

[dx100uk]

sorry to be blunt

but you've ticked the PPI box!!...

what made you do that?

theres nothing there that appears to me that even indicates why you should tick that?

so why the beep did you do it...

 

now the fact that latterly you werent sent things like T&C's etc to mull over you decision for PPI is somewhat secondary, you wouldnt of realised it was not suitable to you  so thats why im saying none of you points are concrete.

scattergun attack on PPI like this always fails.

 

this is why im saying the only chance you might have is by now indicating you realise that it was never necessary and that THEY didn't check the info they got.

i'e..your employers benefits far outweighed the benefits of the PPI policy, thus it was missold.

sorry if the files below are dupes

there are issues with my remote server.

GISC + ABI code info case omb-decision-C.pdf local council employee PPI reclaimwon.pdf PPI council employee PPI reclaimwon.pdf