Fos adjudicators

fattyfergus

Hope someone can help me out here with some good information although I know this question has probably been asked a thousand times. I made a claim against Lloyds TSB about credit card PPI which I was paying for almost 17 years!!! I made a claim against them which they refused and I then referred the matter to the FOS in April 2008. I spoke with an "Adjudicator" at the FOS about 10 days ago and I have now received a letter from him advising that he is unable to recognise my complaint. I have a right to refer the matter to the Ombudsman now. Is it worth it? Has anyone else been in this situation? Feel I have been right royally stitched up here!. Yours desperately.

dunstonh

I have a right to refer the matter to the Ombudsman now.

You may need to clarify that based on your answer to the question and info below....

he is unable to recognise my complaint.

What do you mean by that. It reads as if it is outside the jurisdiction and cannot be dealt with by the FOS. If that is the case, then referring it up the line to an ombudsman wont help as the same would apply to them as well.

If you mean the adjudicator has rejected your case as having no grounds then you can refer it to an ombudsman but you need to be aware that in most simple cases they will go with the adjudicator. It tends to be the more complicated/technical cases where differences may occur.

Remember that having PPI is not something you can complain about. How it was sold is what matters. After 17 years of paying it you would have to have pretty strong evidence of wrong doing to get that upheld. Otherwise it just looks like you are an opportunistic try-it-on complaint. Also, any complaint would be based on the rules that were in place at the time of sale. 17 years ago, there were virtually no rules as general insurance was unregulated.

fattyfergus

The letter from the FOS states "I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld". He does however accept that the firm (Lloyds TSB) may not have adequately explained the policy. I should say that the account was updated in 2003 and again there was no explanation whatsoever that PPI was optional. (there is also the question that the renewal form for this updated account was completed after I had signed it.) I can assure you this is no opportunistic claim. I don't think anyone who had the knowledge at the time would have voluntarily agreed to pay vast sums of money in insurance they did not want. It was only down to Martin and everyone at Moneyexpert that I realised I did not have to take this insurance.

dunstonh

He does however accept that the firm (Lloyds TSB) may not have adequately explained the policy.

If you read that in context, I would expect it to be that they could have said anything but there is no evidence to suggest if it was adequately explained or not.

I can assure you this is no opportunistic claim.

I am not saying it is. However, they are getting an awful lot that are. Unfortunately, those tarnish the attempts of genuine complaints.

I don't think anyone who had the knowledge at the time would have voluntarily agreed to pay vast sums of money in insurance they did not want.

Remember you are making an accusation against them. So, what evidence have you got that supports your claims that they did wrong? If you have no evidence then the FOS have to make a balance of probabilities decision. That typically looks at the limited information supplied. If either party has provided information that can be shown to be wrong (meaning that side is unreliable) and other circumstances that might apply. The fact you paid for 17 years would work against you in that case.

Its impossible for anyone here to pre-empt a decision by an ombudsman. However, with the provider rejecting it and the adjudicator rejecting it and nothing you have stated so far suggesting you have any evidence of mis-sale, it would be unlikely that an ombudsman overule that decision.