PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

So that document I requested then should detail who is responsible then I take it ?

Maybe that is why they are not in a hurry to post this perhaps..... .

I could try posting over at the CAG to see if anyone else had these in the same year, depending who arranged it though I suppose.....

I was asked by the FOS to email them my policy which I did and it clearly stated that Lloyds were responsible and that in the first instance to write to the company that was now liquidated. I told them that at the bottom of the policy it says to write to this company first and they pass the complaint onto Lloyds but they still said they needed to find out who is responsible for the underwriting of this. . I then emailed them and stated how can this be as it clearly states that any complaint about the policy is to be made to Lloyds who ARE covered by the Insurance Ombudsman Service. They still oohed and arred about it and then finallly got back on Saturday to say they have found out who to write to and it was LLoyds and they have written on my behalf.:rolleyes: . I cannot believe that they messed around for so long with this and did not get on with it in the first place. I really don't understand this type of complaints procedure and wish I did but I remember singlep when he was debating with Tiggrae about it saying it was very very complicated.

I know that NOW rebates have to be fair but probably they did not have to be fair prior to being under the FSA from 14th January, 2005. I wonder if that is when this pro rata refund thing came in as singlep said that all complaints whether about the rebate of misselling had to FSA authorised at the time of the sale or members of the GISC and this is what the debate was about. I know that Lloyds were definately under the jurisdiction of the OMbudsman as they were under the Insurance Ombudsman Service but can they apply the rules about pro rata fair refunds to these complaints now.

Is this all going to be for nothing cause again of jurisdiction issues. I have been trying to find out the Insurance Ombudsman Rules etc...

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I was asked by the FOS to email them my policy which I did and it clearly stated that Lloyds were responsible and that in the first instance to write to the company that was now liquidated. I told them that at the bottom of the policy it says to write to this company first and they pass the complaint onto Lloyds but they still said they needed to find out who is responsible for the underwriting of this. . I then emailed them and stated how can this be as it clearly states that any complaint about the policy is to be made to Lloyds who ARE covered by the Insurance Ombudsman Service. They still oohed and arred about it and then finallly got back on Saturday to say they have found out who to write to and it was LLoyds and they have written on my behalf.:rolleyes: . I cannot believe that they messed around for so long with this and did not get on with it in the first place. I really don't understand this type of complaints procedure and wish I did but I remember singlep when he was debating with Tiggrae about it saying it was very very complicated.

Golly so after all that with you telling them it was lloyds they put you through all that then decided after ALL this time to send the details to them !:eek:

Its so frustrating, as it could have been resolved so much flipping earlier !!!

Yes I do remember Singlep saying it was a very complicated issue.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I was asked by the FOS to email them my policy which I did and it clearly stated that Lloyds were responsible and that in the first instance to write to the company that was now liquidated. I told them that at the bottom of the policy it says to write to this company first and they pass the complaint onto Lloyds but they still said they needed to find out who is responsible for the underwriting of this. . I then emailed them and stated how can this be as it clearly states that any complaint about the policy is to be made to Lloyds who ARE covered by the Insurance Ombudsman Service. They still oohed and arred about it and then finallly got back on Saturday to say they have found out who to write to and it was LLoyds and they have written on my behalf.:rolleyes: . I cannot believe that they messed around for so long with this and did not get on with it in the first place. I really don't understand this type of complaints procedure and wish I did but I remember singlep when he was debating with Tiggrae about it saying it was very very complicated.

I know that NOW rebates have to be fair but probably they did not have to be fair prior to being under the FSA from 14th January, 2005. I wonder if that is when this pro rata refund thing came in as singlep said that all complaints whether about the rebate of misselling had to FSA authorised at the time of the sale or members of the GISC and this is what the debate was about. I know that Lloyds were definately under the jurisdiction of the OMbudsman as they were under the Insurance Ombudsman Service but can they apply the rules about pro rata fair refunds to these complaints now.

Is this all going to be for nothing cause again of jurisdiction issues. I have been trying to find out the Insurance Ombudsman Rules etc...

Yes I do think Singlep made a point about this didn't he?
I assumed Lloyds would have been under jurisdiction as well.

I hope you don't get anymore messing with this one, its been a hard one to deal with I know and its a lot of money to reclaim here, they should not be able to get away with this in my opinion and I would be the same as you in this case, hopefully the FOS will sort this out for you now with no comebacks again !

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Yes I do think Singlep made a point about this didn't he?
I assumed Lloyds would have been under jurisdiction as well.

I hope you don't get anymore messing with this one, its been a hard one to deal with I know and its a lot of money to reclaim here, they should not be able to get away with this in my opinion and I would be the same as you in this case, hopefully the FOS will sort this out for you now with no comebacks again !

Yeah sure:rolleyes: ... I suppose time will tell.:rolleyes:

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Yeah sure:rolleyes: ... I suppose time will tell.:rolleyes:

Makes you feel like screaming doesn't it?:mad:

Whenever I see that FOS envelope posted, my heart just beats soooo loud I hear it.......:o , like it did the other day when receiving the one about lloyds......:rolleyes: .
Fingers crossed here for you marshallka, with a bit of luck 2009 will be lucky for you.:A

di3004

Wonder if I will hear any more about the "toothpaste" boss....:rolleyes: , not heard nothing since the last email from the OFT, saying thank you for the information which we will take into consideration for investigation - something like that, but if only if I knew what is what with them, then I would know whether to pursue through them again....or not.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Makes you feel like screaming doesn't it?:mad:

Whenever I see that FOS envelope posted, my heart just beats soooo loud I hear it.......:o , like it did the other day when receiving the one about lloyds......:rolleyes: .
Fingers crossed here for you marshallka, with a bit of luck 2009 will be lucky for you.:A

2008 hasn't been too bad Di but this is the one that I really want to win more than anything.:mad: .

Lloyds of London were part of the Old Insurance Ombudsman Scheme as my loan was taken in 2000 before the new Ombudsman Service was around and it states it at the bottom of the policy. There is no problem of jurisdiction but I just hope they can then apply the rules of now in that we only just became aware of this just like with the old PPI's with the Co-op and using the Banking Ombudsman Service there.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Wonder if I will hear any more about the "toothpaste" boss....:rolleyes: , not heard nothing since the last email from the OFT, saying thank you for the information which we will take into consideration for investigation - something like that, but if only if I knew what is what with them, then I would know whether to pursue through them again....or not.

I doubt you will hear anything of this Di as they will not disclose this information to you. I would just wait for your policy to arrive and it will say on it who the actual underwriter is and then it will state if they are under the Ombudsman too. Most insurers were so you should be ok but it will mean like with me and starting all over again.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

2008 hasn't been too bad Di but this is the one that I really want to win more than anything.:mad: .

Lloyds of London were part of the Old Insurance Ombudsman Scheme as my loan was taken in 2000 before the new Ombudsman Service was around and it states it at the bottom of the policy. There is no problem of jurisdiction but I just hope they can then apply the rules of now in that we only just became aware of this just like with the old PPI's with the Co-op and using the Banking Ombudsman Service there.[/quote

Right I see what you mean now, because I know lloyds were covered in 2001 by then GISC, but due to different rules applied sort of thing before that then.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I doubt you will hear anything of this Di as they will not disclose this information to you. I would just wait for your policy to arrive and it will say on it who the actual underwriter is and then it will state if they are under the Ombudsman too. Most insurers were so you should be ok but it will mean like with me and starting all over again.

Hubby told me not to hold my breath on that one and to see what it says on the policy and take it from there, I wish this would come back soon, I need to know and if this does disclose HFC then there we go, yet on the part of the terms and conds paperwork posted to you it stated hamilton yet hamilton state HFC......