PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I do as well Di. I know the co-op ones are done and dusted but this one with Firstplus is really getting to me now. I feel completely abused here on this one. Someone is responsible for the rebate and surely the FOS should know who. :mad:

I wonder why they will comment on the jurisdiction issues with me.

Yeah I know, I feel quite sickened with mine as well, not knowing where to turn, especially since receiving that letter, but they have not confirmed if they received the details from the FOS though and I think your right that they are trying to cover themselves here......

Yes someone is responsible for the rebate and it seems they are passing the buck......:mad: , I hope you don't get this messing about.......

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Yeah I know, I feel quite sickened with mine as well, not knowing where to turn, especially since receiving that letter, but they have not confirmed if they received the details from the FOS though and I think your right that they are trying to cover themselves here......

Yes someone is responsible for the rebate and it seems they are passing the buck......:mad: , I hope you don't get this messing about.......

Di, I already am having this messing about. I have complained about it to Firstplus and got nowhere and then twice assigned an adjudicator and got them thrown out then told by the FOS its with the insurer and they would write on my behalf. Now they are saying there are jurisdiction issues. If that is not being messed about then what is. My first complaint about the settlement and REBATE was taken on by an adjudicator in June and still near on 6 months later they still cannot tell me where to take the complaint to. I will be making a complaint to the FOS biggies soon if nothing is sorted. They are putting every obstacle in my way that they can. Its making me think that Firstplus are untouchable here where FOS is concerned.:rolleyes:

robbiewilliams

HI all. Just been on phone to FOS who informed me that Black Horse were never a member of GISC and Welcome were from 27/02/03, which is after I took out my loan. Does anyone know if this is correct? If my letters are unsuccessful is the only other option court as I've heard the FLA are a waste of time?

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, I already am having this messing about. I have complained about it to Firstplus and got nowhere and then twice assigned an adjudicator and got them thrown out then told by the FOS its with the insurer and they would write on my behalf. Now they are saying there are jurisdiction issues. If that is not being messed about then what is. My first complaint about the settlement and REBATE was taken on by an adjudicator in June and still near on 6 months later they still cannot tell me where to take the complaint to. I will be making a complaint to the FOS biggies soon if nothing is sorted. They are putting every obstacle in my way that they can. Its making me think that Firstplus are untouchable here where FOS is concerned.:rolleyes:

You've had no end of messing hun I know and its just gone on and on but I just hope after all this time they don't mess up anymore for you here, its pathetic, surely the FOS should know who is who by now......

di3004

robbiewilliams wrote: »

HI all. Just been on phone to FOS who informed me that Black Horse were never a member of GISC and Welcome were from 27/02/03, which is after I took out my loan. Does anyone know if this is correct? If my letters are unsuccessful is the only other option court as I've heard the FLA are a waste of time?

Hi there hun
So you've had this confirmed then.
Yet someone said on here the other say that BH were covered by GISC, I assume someone had told them that, it gets all so confusing doesn't it?

Now with the FLA, yes they can be a waste of time but it depends I think if they have the companies listed - "I think", but yet some have been lucky enough through the FLA, contact them to see what they have to say and take it from there hun, just give them a go.;)

Court would be another option - and probably a quicker method too. x

robbiewilliams

Courts a bit nerve rwecking though! Have you done this?

di3004

Robbie-Williams:

https://www.poscredit4u.co.uk/en/article.asp?chco_id=70

I found this link but its about advertising, think BH were covered by the FLA lending code though.

di3004

robbiewilliams wrote: »

Courts a bit nerve rwecking though! Have you done this?

No hun but if it comes to it I think I will go this direction, I hear its not that bad as you think and the other party does not normally attend, hopefully someone who has been though this can confirm.;)

di3004

Robbie-Williams:

http://www.fla.org.uk/news/news.asp?ID=120

PPI
The Commission has concerns over insurance services sold with the cards. However, since 14 January 2005, FSA has regulated this area - and the law now gives consumers extra protection by requiring them to specifically sign for insurance or other add-on products.

FLA is working with Financial Services Authority (FSA) on its “Thematic Review of PPI” and on initiatives with members to increase consumer understanding of the product.

Ashley Holmes comments, “We recognise that there are concerns around the selling of PPI, but it is important that consumers are offered some sort of safety net on their borrowing.”

Holmes continues, "Store cards are still an attractive credit option to many consumers, particularly those who pay off their bills every month, since they enjoy the extra services and personalised discounts that come with the cards."

Some of these benefits include:
- introductory discounts on goods
- typically around 10%;
- card holder discounts;
- interest free periods of up to 3 months in certain stores or up to 6 months on certain goods if consumers spend over a certain threshold;
- extra money off during sale periods – in some cases 20% savings;
- exclusive store openings;
- invitations to special events (including sale previews);
- discounted rates for affinity groups;
- other third party offers;
- free magazines or catalogues; and
- details of special offers.

FLA is working with the industry to on a number of initiatives aimed at ensuring that consumers benefit from open, fair and responsible lending. They include:

• Training. FLA is working with members to provide industry wide accredited training for the retail credit market. The scheme aims to give all UK retail staff an opportunity to gain a recognised qualification enabling them to sell retail financial products compliantly. This flows from a pledge by FLA to the Competition Commission, given during a private hearing.

• Insurance. FLA welcomes the FSA Thematic Review for PPI. We have also taken specific initiatives to increase consumer understanding of the product and their options at the point of sale. Unlike the Banking Code, FLA’s Lending Code deals with PPI.

• Transparency. Since 31 March 2004, all FLA members have provided clear upfront information in a Summary Box – prominently displayed in all marketing literature, it sets out the key features of their store card agreement, including APR rates and any other charges. This initiative has been welcomed by the Consumer Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe.

• Disputes. FLA Complaints Scheme is available to any consumer involved in a dispute with an FLA member firm. Although there are few complaints, the Scheme ensures speedy settlement of any disputes.

• Responsible lending. FLA’s Lending Code has tough provisions on issues relating to consumer information and dealing with debt difficulties sympathetically. FLA is currently looking at how its code can be strengthened further to deliver responsible lending.

marshallka

robbiewilliams wrote: »

HI all. Just been on phone to FOS who informed me that Black Horse were never a member of GISC and Welcome were from 27/02/03, which is after I took out my loan. Does anyone know if this is correct? If my letters are unsuccessful is the only other option court as I've heard the FLA are a waste of time?

So sorry to hear this for you robbie.. Are you willing to go through the courts...??