PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

bathgatebuyer

marshallka wrote: »

I have never been treated like this from anyone on here before. I feel annoyed at the moment and all I did was backed up what I believe in and what I am doing daily on here in helping people make complaints about missold PPI. If you look back over credit crunched first posts on this thread they slated PPI reclaimers and I fought back as I will "always". I have no intention of getting into a playground slanging match back although I do need to cool down.

Marshallka, you're not going anywhere! For a start, you're my hero and always have loads of useful advice for me and everyone else.

As the economic situation worsens, there will be many more people who find out that their expensive PPI cover is worthless and that the safety net they thought they could rely on was never there in the first place.

More people than ever will need your input, and I expect that the banks will find themselves questioned to an even greater extent than they are right now because of the increasing levels of people trying to claim.

This thread could very well be a lifeline to those left with no means of survival over the coming months and you have a big part to play in it.

Now, go away, calm down, and come back and tell me how to get my money back from those gits at Sainburys

showergirl

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

Lol i think you mis-read the post, its not her thinking of leaving. You say ban them?
I am one person, not a company i thought it was a witty name.

Please feel free to ignore my posts, however some people have found them useful. I do have some useful things to offer i just find the "local place for local people" attitude a little bit childlike.

and please do not get angry, an internet forum is not worth it.

It is you who is being childish, picking at every little thing. Leave this site alone if you have nothing useful to say

bathgatebuyer

Don't the Money Laundering Regulations require that all documentation is retained for 6 years?

Edit - I've had a look at the guidance online and it says 5 years in the legislation, although other articles seem to indicate 6!

di3004

Oh dear..........:o what is happening here folks?....... , will catch up with posts later here, Uncle gone now, so its my turn to help my son.;)

Chins up folks.:D xx

marshallka

bathgatebuyer wrote: »

Marshallka, you're not going anywhere! For a start, you're my hero and always have loads of useful advice for me and everyone else.

As the economic situation worsens, there will be many more people who find out that their expensive PPI cover is worthless and that the safety net they thought they could rely on was never there in the first place.

More people than ever will need your input, and I expect that the banks will find themselves questioned to an even greater extent than they are right now because of the increasing levels of people trying to claim.

This thread could very well be a lifeline to those left with no means of survival over the coming months and you have a big part to play in it.

Now, go away, calm down, and come back and tell me how to get my money back from those gits at Sainburys

Thanks for your support bathgatebuyer. I am flued up at the moment so not feeling like fighting anyway but I will be back on later...:A .

Credit-Crunched

bathgatebuyer wrote: »

Don't the Money Laundering Regulations require that all documentation is retained for 6 years?

Edit - I've had a look at the guidance online and it says 5 years in the legislation, although other articles seem to indicate 6!

See i can be useful, i am not here to wind people up. I have a lot of industry knowledge that i can offer. Please dont think i am anti this forum, i just need people to undestand the difference between a valid and non valid claim. To protect all the valid claimants out there.

marshallka

Credit-Crunched wrote: »

See i can be useful, i am not here to wind people up. I have a lot of industry knowledge that i can offer. Please dont think i am anti this forum, i just need people to undestand the difference between a valid and non valid claim. To protect all the valid claimants out there.

I think really that is for the banks and Ombudsman to decide and judge....

Credit-Crunched

marshallka wrote: »

I think really that is for the banks and Ombudsman to decide and judge....

we dont want people to ruin it for the genuine ones, all placed under one umbrella n all. Think it through please.

di3004

Right just a quickie, until I can post back later.

Received a letter from the Adjudicator (lloyds Tsb), this is being moved onto the Financial Ombudsman as Lloyds disagreed with the adjudicators view, so any further information I have I can send by the 31 Dec or I can have longer if I request for this.

Not the news I was hoping for, but there we go....... , thought it may have been pretty straight forward due to my circumstances at the time but Lloyds are not having it.

Just have to hope for the best and hope this can still be fast tracked.

Back later.;)

pinknico

di3004 wrote: »

Right just a quickie, until I can post back later.

Received a letter from the Adjudicator (lloyds Tsb), this is being moved onto the Financial Ombudsman as Lloyds disagreed with the adjudicators view, so any further information I have I can send by the 31 Dec or I can have longer if I request for this.

Not the news I was hoping for, but there we go....... , thought it may have been pretty straight forward due to my circumstances at the time but Lloyds are not having it.

Just have to hope for the best and hope this can still be fast tracked.

Back later.;)

What on earth can they find to disagree about?
Isnt this the one where you were not working and only got child benefit?