PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

SavySaver_2

Hi
Been reclaiming PPi on behalf of my mum from Clydesdale Bank. She got a letter last week after sending in the first template letter.
After "investigating" they have declined her claim as they dont think she has been missold. They said they advisor was compitent and that she was aware of what she was taking out. Obviously we dont agree. They have told her she can complain to ombudsman if she wants.

So do you think we should send in 2nd template letter or go straight to ombudsman.

Thanks

di3004

The email received from the FSCS today in regards of our documents here:


Dear Mr and Mrs

Thank you for your E mail of 20 July 2009 about your claim against Twopart Limited.

All the documents that you sent to us previously would have been passed to Deloittes. In response to their letter of 17 July 2009, just confirm that all documentation has been sent to us and you have nothing further.




I hope this clarrifies matters.

Yours sincerely



Senior Claims Officer

di3004

SavySaver wrote: »

Hi
Been reclaiming PPi on behalf of my mum from Clydesdale Bank. She got a letter last week after sending in the first template letter.
After "investigating" they have declined her claim as they dont think she has been missold. They said they advisor was compitent and that she was aware of what she was taking out. Obviously we dont agree. They have told her she can complain to ombudsman if she wants.

So do you think we should send in 2nd template letter or go straight to ombudsman.

Thanks

Hi there is this was the first response, then I would write back and stand her ground, ask them to reconsider, they will in the final response give details of the FOS.;)
But it is up to your mum, normally there has to be a final response, but if she wants to go to the FOS at this stage, tell her to ring them first and see what they suggest, good luck and tell your mum to keep on at them, she received a standard fob off response.;)

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

I dont think a company should get a reduction on their fine until they have paid everyone back their money and stop messing customers about.

You are right there Pinknico. If they have the money from sales made another few weeks (let alone the amount of time they are holding back on looking into complaints) since the fine then the interest alone on these sales make loads of money (probably enough to pay the fine) so they are not really out of pocket. They should not have been allowed ANY reduction at all until EVERY single premium that they were fined for was paid back. It would then have come out of their profits and not profits made from missold PPI.

amersall

di3004 wrote: »

The email received from the FSCS today in regards of our documents here:


Dear Mr and Mrs

Thank you for your E mail of 20 July 2009 about your claim against Twopart Limited.

All the documents that you sent to us previously would have been passed to Deloittes. In response to their letter of 17 July 2009, just confirm that all documentation has been sent to us and you have nothing further.




I hope this clarrifies matters.

Yours sincerely



Senior Claims Officer

thats great di, no more messing about?, good luck with this and hope you dont have to wait long for whats due to you xx

di3004

amersall wrote: »

thats great di, no more messing about?, good luck with this and hope you dont have to wait long for whats due to you xx

Thanks amersall, maybe it's a waste of time then me sending deloittes the copies of what they already received then from the FSCS? lol, was sorting all this stuff out yesterday, we cannot give what we have not got can we?;)
Hope your well.:AXXX

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

I have done an email to the FSA (don't know how to send this though) about the way they have treated the "settling early" of the fine imposed on Alliance and Leicester where they got a 30% reduction in the amount and yet when we have settled loans early we are then penalised for doing so.

Do you think I should send this? Is it just me here or is this very unfair???

Here is what I was going to send to them

I just wanted to know why it is that when you fined Alliance and Leicester for the PPI they were selling you gave them a 30% reduction for settling their fine early and yet these firms actually charged us a penalty (unfair penalty) when we settled early using the rule of 78 etc in both loans and PPI. Why is one rule for one and one for another?

Yes good idea to send. Am sure they will come back with a load of old rubbish trying to blind us all with science.

Joking askide I think your point is valid.

marshallka

How about this then to the FSA (PS I don't have any complaints with A and L but it got my back up!! I did however pay an unfair penalty when I settled my debt early)

I would like to make a point of saying that although you have fined some firms for the misselling of PPI I note that your fine to Alliance and Leicester was reduced by 30% due to them "settling early". I find this unfair as when we as consumers settle our loans and PPI early we were actually charged a "penalty" for doing this by the firms using the rule of 78 etc on our settlement which included the PPI also as this was in fact a loan upon a loan and I find this an unfair penalty charge. Why is that there is one rule for one and another for the firms that sell this.

Consumers are still in battles with Alliance and Leicester making redress payments and although 8% statutory interest is paid on top of these i would imagine that the interest earned from the missold PPI far outweighs the interest paid at this 8% to consumers. If I had £50,000 to invest then I would receive a much better interest rate over time that if I had a few hundred. This seems very unfair that they were actually allowed to settle this fine with a reduced amount using interest gained from missold PPI. It would have been far fairer to make them repay the consumers first (and INCURRING interest on their fine until everyone was paid back and then after that look into reducing this afterall it was the consumer that was actually wrong done here) instead of allowing them to hold onto funds ill gotton by this misselling and gaining again from it.

If consumers were given their missold PPI back sooner (and this goes for all companies that are delaying complaints etc) then we would also be able to repay our credit cards/overdrafts etc sooner and not have to pay interest on these and reduce our debts too (which are often far more than 8% over time). Instead we are having to wait for these complaints near on 18 months queuing with the FOS and by then when these complaints are upheld and we actually receive the 8% statutory interest this is then not nearly enough as the interest and debt we have had to further incur, waiting for the complaints to be looked into.

These fines don't seem to be doing much in ways of improving the complaints procedure and it seems like the companies are still doing as they please in the meantime.
I am not speaking just for myself here and would like this complaint passing onto to whoever can address the concerns.

maxdp

marshallka wrote: »

How about this then to the FSA (PS I don't have any complaints with A and L but it got my back up!! I did however pay an unfair penalty when I settled my debt early)

I would like to make a point of saying that although you have fined some firms for the misselling of PPI I note that your fine to Alliance and Leicester was reduced by 30% due to them "settling early". I find this unfair as when we as consumers settle our loans and PPI early we were actually charged a "penalty" for doing this by the firms using the rule of 78 etc on our settlement which included the PPI also as this was in fact a loan upon a loan and I find this an unfair penalty charge. Why is that there is one rule for one and another for the firms that sell this.

Consumers are still in battles with Alliance and Leicester making redress payments and although 8% statutory interest is paid on top of these i would imagine that the interest earned from the missold PPI far outweighs the interest paid at this 8% to consumers. If I had £50,000 to invest then I would receive a much better interest rate over time that if I had a few hundred. This seems very unfair that they were actually allowed to settle this fine with a reduced amount using interest gained from missold PPI. It would have been far fairer to make them repay the consumers first (and INCURRING interest on their fine until everyone was paid back and then after that look into reducing this afterall it was the consumer that was actually wrong done here) instead of allowing them to hold onto funds ill gotton by this misselling and gaining again from it.

If consumers were given their missold PPI back sooner (and this goes for all companies that are delaying complaints etc) then we would also be able to repay our credit cards/overdrafts etc sooner and not have to pay interest on these and reduce our debts too (which are often far more than 8% over time). Instead we are having to wait for these complaints near on 18 months queuing with the FOS and by then when these complaints are upheld and we actually receive the 8% statutory interest this is then not nearly enough as the interest and debt we have had to further incur, waiting for the complaints to be looked into.

These fines don't seem to be doing much in ways of improving the complaints procedure and it seems like the companies are still doing as they please in the meantime.
I am not speaking just for myself here and would like this complaint passing onto to whoever can address the concerns.

Good points here. What they do not take into consideration is those people who have had PPI on all their cards and loans etc although these are refunded if we are lucky they do not take into consideration how this can lead into a landslide of debt. I know we cannot blame others for our financial difficulties but they certainly have not helped.

di3004

Deloitte have just emailed not to confirm they do not require anything now, so it seems that the FSCS may have been in touch with them as well. This was just in my hubby's email box here........

Mr, we appreciate your response, and thank you for looking into your documents to see if you have any of the requested information. Short of what was requested in the letter we currently do not require anything else from you, but if the situation changes we will contact you.

Thank you,

D