MSE News: FSA to re-open 185,000 rejected debt insurance claims

whodoitaketocourt

Re. "unregulated at the time of complaints", the exact wording in the FSA is :

3.19 Complaints about banks’ and insurers’ general insurance activity, including
complaints about their sales of general insurance, have been covered by DISP
since N2 (1 December 2001).
3.20 For brokers who became authorised only at N3 (14 January 2005), post-N3
complaints about pre-N3 insurance activity were made subject to DISP and
the FOS if the broker was covered by the General Insurance Standards Council
(GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter of the complaint would have
been covered by GISC.
3.21 So the guidance will apply to a complaint about a pre-N3 sale provided the
complaint falls within DISP as per the foregoing.
3.22 This is important, as firms seem to have been handling complaints about these
earlier sales no better than those about later ones. For example, around half of the
complaints about PPI referred to the FOS have concerned pre-N3 sales, and just as many of them are being over-turned by the FOS in favour of the consumer as for complaints about later sales.



The last part is particularly interesting as it says that the FOS has ruled in the consumer's favour in a large proportion of these "unregulated" cases as long as GISC applied (aren't all insurance companies signed up to GISC ?).

marshallka

whodoitaketocourt wrote: »

Re. "unregulated at the time of complaints", the exact wording in the FSA is :

3.19 Complaints about banks’ and insurers’ general insurance activity, including
complaints about their sales of general insurance, have been covered by DISP
since N2 (1 December 2001).
3.20 For brokers who became authorised only at N3 (14 January 2005), post-N3
complaints about pre-N3 insurance activity were made subject to DISP and
the FOS if the broker was covered by the General Insurance Standards Council
(GISC) at the time of the sale and the subject matter of the complaint would have
been covered by GISC.
3.21 So the guidance will apply to a complaint about a pre-N3 sale provided the
complaint falls within DISP as per the foregoing.
3.22 This is important, as firms seem to have been handling complaints about these
earlier sales no better than those about later ones. For example, around half of the
complaints about PPI referred to the FOS have concerned pre-N3 sales, and just as many of them are being over-turned by the FOS in favour of the consumer as for complaints about later sales.



The last part is particularly interesting as it says that the FOS has ruled in the consumer's favour in a large proportion of these "unregulated" cases as long as GISC applied (aren't all insurance companies signed up to GISC ?).

GISC was a voluntary code and some signed up and others not. As regards "Inurance companies" (by saying insurance companies I actually mean the insurer's here) then they would have come under Compulsory jurisdiction anyway. But to make a misselling complaint against the actual insurer being responsible for the actions of the agents then this is very difficult to prove so we are told. FOS is actually looking into this now for some.


Also the text you have quoted comes into force (if it happens) in January 2010

This instrument comes into force on 1 January 2010

Jackswan_2

dunstonh wrote: »

No need to resubmit. The providers will have to go back on rejected complaints and review them again. Similar has occured in the past in other areas when firms were found to "over reject" complaints. Out of the blue people would be told a review of their complaint has seen it upheld and redress payable.

I started reclaiming PPI/PPC back in 2007 and have letters of rejections from credit card companies. In light of the latest news, wouldn't it be a good idea to contact those CCC's who rejected out of hand the claims for re-payment instead of waiting for FOS to rule in your favour. I am told that FOS have four stages before a decision is reached, each stage can take up 4/5 weeks if your lucky.

I think I will dig my paperwork out and write to those CCC's who rejected my claims when I was self-employed and I had stated that on my application forms. Capital One and Barclaycard the worse offenders, with RBS (Tesco/Sainsburys) close behind.

marshallka

Jackswan wrote: »

I started reclaiming PPI/PPC back in 2007 and have letters of rejections from credit card companies. In light of the latest news, wouldn't it be a good idea to contact those CCC's who rejected out of hand the claims for re-payment instead of waiting for FOS to rule in your favour. I am told that FOS have four stages before a decision is reached, each stage can take up 4/5 weeks if your lucky.

I think I will dig my paperwork out and write to those CCC's who rejected my claims when I was self-employed and I had stated that on my application forms. Capital One and Barclaycard the worse offenders, with RBS (Tesco/Sainsburys) close behind.

If the complaints are with FOS now then will the companies actually correspond with you again??
What were your reasons though for the complaints? If your only reasons were cause of self employment and nothing else make sure that you were definately not covered. SOme policies actually cover you for self employment if you are paying class 2 NI so it may be that they will throw it back and argument ended. As regards putting the complaints back in then I would give it a go although these new proposals are not until Jan 2010 (I don't think) but certainly worth a shot now although as dunstonh says they will no doubt redress anyway regardless. Let us know how you go on.

di3004

Found this link here in regards of the FSA, looking at complaints, mainly aimed at small businesses though, Oct 04 and pre Oct 04.
Mortgage activities
Similar arrangements apply for general insurance brokers etc......

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/faqs/complaints_sourcebook.shtml

Can my customers refer complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service after 31 October 2004 about my firm’s activities before that date?

The Treasury has made a special order dealing with complaints arising after 31 October 2004 (the start of FSA regulation of mortgage broking) about the activities of a mortgage broker before regulation began. This is the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Complaints Relating to General Insurance and Mortgages) Order 2004.
This order means that the Financial Ombudsman Service can look at such complaints if:

1. they are about the activities of an authorised firm that is a former member of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB); and
2. the complaint would previously have been considered under the Mortgage Code Arbitration Scheme.

If you satisfy these conditions and you are an authorised firm, the FOS will be able to deal with complaints about your pre 31 October mortgage activities.
Similar arrangements apply for general insurance brokers. The FOS can deal with complaints about the general insurance-related activities of a broker before 14 January 2005 (the start of FSA general insurance regulation). This is provided the complaints relate to an authorised firm that is a former member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) and the complaint would previously have been considered by GISC's dispute resolution facility.
You should note that the FOS will consider such complaints with reference to the rules and regulations that applied at the relevant time i.e. the Mortgage Code for complaints about pre 31 October 2004 mortgage activity and the GISC rules for complaints about general insurance-related activity before 14 January 2005.

marshallka

Seems from these proposals that if you have been redressed but not the whole amount due back then they are asking the firms to reconsider these too.

3.25 We do not consider it would be proportionate or necessary to look to unwind cases settled with the consumer on a full and final basis.

However, we would consider it of doubtful fairness and integrity on the part of a firm were it to routinely offer standard or arbitrary figures for the settlement of PPI complaints in the period before the proposed guidance comes into force, and we would be likely to investigate such behaviour where it came to our attention.

So does this mean that cases settled by goodwill and not admitting liability etc and not the full amount that you would otherwise get back for misselling by reopened or do you have to bring them to the attention of the FSA or FOS?? Could a consumer who has received a goodwill gesture of a lesser amount than they WOULD have received for misselling NOW go back to the firm to ask they relook into it otherwise they will go to FOS or the FSA and complain??

I do however realise this is for complaints within the jurisdictions of FOS etc...:rolleyes:

So if like one of banks were doing in offering £750 out of goodwill but the consumer would have got back for example another £3K if they won misselling then they have to complain about it again and its not going to be automatic that the companies redress?? If this is the case then I assume that loads will lose out again unless they are aware they can complain again.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps a sticky may be in order to highlight this after January 2010.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Seems from these proposals that if you have been redressed but not the whole amount due back then they are asking the firms to reconsider these too.

3.25 We do not consider it would be proportionate or necessary to look to unwind cases settled with the consumer on a full and final basis.

However, we would consider it of doubtful fairness and integrity on the part of a firm were it to routinely offer standard or arbitrary figures for the settlement of PPI complaints in the period before the proposed guidance comes into force, and we would be likely to investigate such behaviour where it came to our attention.

So does this mean that cases settled by goodwill and not admitting liability etc and not the full amount that you would otherwise get back for misselling by reopened or do you have to bring them to the attention of the FSA or FOS?? Could a consumer who has received a goodwill gesture of a lesser amount than they WOULD have received for misselling NOW go back to the firm to ask they relook into it otherwise they will go to FOS or the FSA and complain??

I do however realise this is for complaints within the jurisdictions of FOS etc...:rolleyes:

So if like one of banks were doing in offering £750 out of goodwill but the consumer would have got back for example another £3K if they won misselling then they have to complain about it again and its not going to be automatic that the companies redress?? If this is the case then I assume that loads will lose out again unless they are aware they can complain again.

:rolleyes:

Perhaps a sticky may be in order to highlight this after January 2010.

Yes great idea Marshallka, one for you here, I'm sure MSE Wendy would be happy to sort this out.;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Yes great idea Marshallka, one for you here, I'm sure MSE Wendy would be happy to sort this out.;)

I will pm although need to find out the ins and outs really first. This is how it sounds in that the FSA state "if it came to our attention"??? Now saying that, do they mean that the CONSUMER has to bring it to their attention. Need to clarify this first before starting something off that will never come about.
Lots of deperate people TOOK these goodwill offers and they were due back much more.


Some old news (2007) here about Goodwill gestures and so true

http://express-press-release.net/43/Insurers%60%20gestures%20of%20goodwill%20are%20manipulating%20PPI%20mis-selling%20figures.php

and 2009 here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/feb/22/ppi-banks-mis-selling

or one here from another site saying that if you have had a goodwill gesture of banks charges then its just that - goodwill and you will be entitled to it again...

I doubt this would really be fair though if the complaint was offered in goodwill BUT redressed EXACTLY the same as if missold and the same amount as missold. Its not the same though for those have been redressed goodwill and NOT received the same as missold and then signed full and final. It MAY now all fall back on these firms now if they have to redress again.

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/showthread.php?t=17159

woodymeg

pinknico wrote: »

"It also wants to ensure those missold single premium cover, a particular type of PPI where the cost for the term of the loan is paid upfront and therefore incurs interest, get their money back. "

This surely means all FSCS single premium cases should be successful?

hi we was sold this on two loans which have both been paid off. Noticed when getting settlement figure the whole amount was included even though we had only had each loan for a year or so, we actually had our own insurance which freedom def knew about because they listed it down, but still sold us the ppi because they knew how desperate we were, well you have to be if you go through them. Do i Stand a good chance sent letter off to freedom a couple of days ago any way

marshallka

woodymeg wrote: »

hi we was sold this on two loans which have both been paid off. Noticed when getting settlement figure the whole amount was included even though we had only had each loan for a year or so, we actually had our own insurance which freedom def knew about because they listed it down, but still sold us the ppi because they knew how desperate we were, well you have to be if you go through them. Do i Stand a good chance sent letter off to freedom a couple of days ago any way

You stand a good chance as both were since regulations.;)