218bhp Vs. GE Money (PPI Claim)

ianhillwoodville

OK maybe i'm getting obsessed with this, my wife certainly thinks so.

Just a quick thought. As I understand it the key date in all this is 15 January 2005 when the FSA took over jurisdiction. As I understand things companies such as GE are now required - not because of the JR but through the principles of the FSA - to investigate all complaints fairly.

So the question I pose is. What changed in their practices between say Jan 13 and Jan 15 such that complaints made on PPI after that date may be upheld by the company and those made on the 16th are not?

Is it not the case that in considering a complaint fairly the Company must apply the same tests of fairness to all? If that is the case then I have to wonder whether there are people from after that date who have had complaints upheld who would be prepared to share the outcomes.

Maybe I am naive but it would seem to me, at the very least, that whilst the FOS may not be able to investigate the mis-selling per se they can instead examine the fairness of the complaint handling and (presumably) whilst unable to rule on the major issue can investigate and presumably rule on whether the treatment of one individual was fair compared to any other.

OK I accept that is possibly a very ill-informed opinion but it did just occur to me.

magpiecottage

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

As I understand things companies such as GE are now required - not because of the JR but through the principles of the FSA - to investigate all complaints fairly.

You are almost right but the difference between almost and totally is the key.

The FSA requires all eligible complaints to be investigated fairly.

"Eligible" in this context, means "eligible for consideration by the Financial Ombudsman Service". It has no control over ineligible complaints.

Most insurers, banks and building societies allowed FOS to deal with complaints relating to events before 2005 anyway and it took over the arbitration arrangements for the GISC and Mortgage Codes - so they are eligible.

However, GE Money did not allow FOS jurisdiction until it had to and did not subscribe to the voluntary codes either.

Therefore, you cannot take the complaint to FOS.

ianhillwoodville

Thanks Magpiecottage have just expanded on this a bit on my post about MPPI. Well I thought it might have been a stroke of brilliance and as another thought the FOS are eligible to consider the complaint but not to uphold or is that really just too much of a pedantic thought!

OK I'll only use one thread for this....

marshallka

Seem to be a member here

http://www.cml.org.uk/membersarea/directory/search.asp?dir=1

I did not know of this search?

biondani

I have a question re the SAR requested in the first instance in this complaint. Surely if GE sent a page to the original poster showing his signature but this wasn't given in the SAR as well then GE have not complied correctly to the SAR request as they must send back all information held. Should the original complainant complain to the ICO with regard to the SAR request as well?

Ian