Companies in Default/FSCS Claims - Picture, London Scottish, Twopart

busbyh

pinknico wrote: »

I suppose a small blessing is the postal strikes have been called off.xx

That's one positive, pinknico:beer:

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Defo a botch up issue on the NCB though isn't it with the FSCS?, its not fair at all

But with FOS if you have received your NCB (or likes of!!) then don't they redress and take this into account with misselling, as far as I am aware they do.

I know its unfair to the ones that have received it just before winning with the FSCS but they are being redressed all the Premium back and payments and interest made against the PPI so I would say they need to do a "one for all". If people paid it back to their loans then they would be in as near to a position as if they never had the PPI (just like with FOS)...... They should either give it to everyone or take away from everyone (fair is fair). If it was redressed the normal way then the PPI would be cancelled anyway and no-one would be due their NCB after winning "misselling" but i believe that people are not being redressed for misselling, its for bad advice. Again, bad advice is a missale with FOS????I think they boobed up altogether TBH whereby they are leaving the policy in force as its totally not fair to the ones being redressed by FOS for bad advice. They should at least all stick together (both work with the FSA) and the same method should be used for both. Either bad advice is a missale and therefore the policy cancelled or bad advice is bad advice and therefore the policy stays in force (hence enabling all to claim their NCB or cashbacks!!).

Just my opinion.

busbyh

marshallka wrote: »

But with FOS if you have received your NCB (or likes of!!) then don't they redress and take this into account with misselling, as far as I am aware they do.

I know its unfair to the ones that have received it just before winning with the FSCS but they are being redressed all the Premium back and payments and interest made against the PPI so I would say they need to do a "one for all". If people paid it back to their loans then they would be in as near to a position as if they never had the PPI (just like with FOS)...... They should either give it to everyone or take away from everyone (fair is fair). If it was redressed the normal way then the PPI would be cancelled anyway and no-one would be due their NCB after winning "misselling" but i believe that people are not being redressed for misselling, its for bad advice. Again, bad advice is a missale with FOS????I think they boobed up altogether TBH whereby they are leaving the policy in force as its totally not fair to the ones being redressed by FOS for bad advice. They should at least all stick together (both work with the FSA) and the same method should be used for both. Either bad advice is a missale and therefore the policy cancelled or bad advice is bad advice and therefore the policy stays in force (hence enabling all to claim their NCB or cashbacks!!).

Just my opinion.

Yes, they do need to do a 'one for all' I just cannot understand how they are working with the NCB.

Why should you be penalised for being in receipt of the NCB at time of settlement, when if you rcd it say a month later, this is not taken into the calculation.

Also if as the FSCS say the PPi is still in force, how can they then deduct the NCB, as obviously you would hopefully still rcd the 4/5th NCB so why should they deduct the 3rd year. Makes no sense to me at all.

Seems to me as though they have just treated it like the Insurance rebate, in as much as they have deducted it from settlement figure.

If the PPI stays in force for 5yrs you are entitled to 50% in NCB back if you have not claimed on the policy.Therefore as FSCS have stated it is still in force unless you choose to cancel and receive the rebate. Why should they deduct the NCB from the settlement figure

Although non of this applies to me, if it did, I would fight this all the way as these calulations are being worked out differently.



In effect e.g. someome has paid £10,000 for PPI + £2000 interest = £12000 but already in receipt of £2000ncb. therefore payment of £10,000 made AFTER DEDCUCTING £2000 already rcd.

Someone has the same PPI - £10000 + £2000 and not in receipt of NCB YET. RCD £12000 payment and a month after settlement rcd NCB of £2000 total rcd £14000 - WHERE'S THE JUSTICE IN THAT

marshallka

Does anyone know (and i know that no-one is actually doing this and not saying they should either) but if you received a redress and DID pay it over to the loan would that put the consumer back into the position as if they never had the PPI (or near to). I realise that most loans through the FSCS can only at maximum have ran for a few years so if you paid over your redress would this reduce your loan/repayments to the likes of never having the PPI.

I know Pinknico said it would if you paid it back? If that is the case then if someone did make a lump sum payment against the loan and then still did not cancel the PPI, also received their NCB too and all repayments made to date against the PPI with interest then surely they are actually better off than if they went through FOS as FOS reduces the loan and cancels the PPI. This is my point, why can't FOS do this also? It should be one rule per the FSA?? I cannot understand........ its confusing...

busbyh

Marshallka,
I'm sure I read somwhere that the FSCS do liase with FSA and FOS but thet do also have different rules to them regarding the compensation payment I know there is the first £2000 rule but not sure about any others

busbyh

marshallka wrote: »

Does anyone know (and i know that no-one is actually doing this and not saying they should either) but if you received a redress and DID pay it over to the loan would that put the consumer back into the position as if they never had the PPI (or near to). I realise that most loans through the FSCS can only at maximum have ran for a few years so if you paid over your redress would this reduce your loan/repayments to the likes of never having the PPI.

I know Pinknico said it would if you paid it back? If that is the case then if someone did make a lump sum payment against the loan and then still did not cancel the PPI, also received their NCB too and all repayments made to date against the PPI with interest then surely they are actually better off than if they went through FOS as FOS reduces the loan and cancels the PPI. This is my point, why can't FOS do this also? It should be one rule per the FSA?? I cannot understand........ its confusing...

Don't know marshallka, why the FOS and FSCS apparantley don't work the same, it is so confusing.

I initially assumed the PPi would automatically be cancelled. Didn't think it could go any other way, but as we have seen this is not the case.
I do wonder if the FSCS have boobed good style here.

EDIT

The FSCS must have been directed to process the claims, with the Insurance staying in place. The legal dept has obviously made this decision.

Maybe this is the wayforward for any future claims for mis sold PPI. when it is sold through the finance company and not the insurance company.

The PPI was not sold directly from the Insurance company to customers, so maybe the FSCS don't see them as mis selling, just Picture going about it in the wrong way - re inappropriate staff training, giving bad advise or lack of information, whichever the case may be. Which is what they have based the cases on.

di3004

Wishing everyone luck for this coming week.:beer:

I have a good feeling there are going to be some payouts - fingers crossed.:j

busbyh

di3004 wrote: »

Wishing everyone luck for this coming week.:beer:

I have a good feeling there are going to be some payouts - fingers crossed.:j

Hope that feeling is right di, I haven't got that yet:D

di3004

busbyh wrote: »

Hope that feeling is right di, I haven't got that yet:D

Don't think it will be mine though lol......but I do think as there have been a standstill for some days (hence the weekend), a big batch will all be sent out the same time in the week.
Hope one of them will be yours.:beer:

marshallka

busbyh wrote: »

Don't know marshallka, why the FOS and FSCS apparantley don't work the same, it is so confusing.

I initially assumed the PPi would automatically be cancelled. Didn't think it could go any other way, but as we have seen this is not the case.
I do wonder if the FSCS have boobed good style here.

EDIT

The FSCS must have been directed to process the claims, with the Insurance staying in place. The legal dept has obviously made this decision.

Maybe this is the wayforward for any future claims for mis sold PPI. when it is sold through the finance company and not the insurance company.

The PPI was not sold directly from the Insurance company to customers, so maybe the FSCS don't see them as mis selling, just Picture going about it in the wrong way - re inappropriate staff training, giving bad advise or lack of information, whichever the case may be. Which is what they have based the cases on.

Not many PPI policies are sold via the insurance company though busbyh?? They are sold by lenders and brokers etc but just been looking at the new FSA proposals and nothing about leaving a policy still in force for misselling and looking through the FOS cases upheld for misselling lots of cause of bad advice. I think the legal department at the FSCS have never dealt with this before and maybe they have it wrong?? I cannot see any difference between bad advice and misselling? I thought that most people that come onto this site have complaints that relate to misselling and they state their polices are missold. Surely that is what criteria the FSCS should use in their looking into the complaint. In fact reading back before anyone had their redress from the FSCS most people that had complaints against Picture said it was cause they believed they had been missold it. It would be interesting to know what they say is the difference between them as per the FSA??? Like I say, very confusing?