update

di3004

I agree with you Marshallka, I do think the way dee have been treated is awful.

Good luck Dee, please keep us posted on this, cheers.;)

deeb604

di3004 wrote: »

I agree with you Marshallka, I do think the way dee have been treated is awful.

Good luck Dee, please keep us posted on this, cheers.;)

Cheers all, shame people power isn't enough!! Thanks Dix

deeb604

I have sent Funding corp a letter and tried FLA(awaiting a response). Court is the next option, be good to know what my chances are of winning though!! Will keep you posted!!

di3004

deeb604 wrote: »

I have sent Funding corp a letter and tried FLA(awaiting a response). Court is the next option, be good to know what my chances are of winning though!! Will keep you posted!!

Good luck Dee.;):)X

Consumerist

I am a bit confused as to why the FOS will not pursue your claim.

According to the MSE Reclaiming Guide :-

• Is your policy older but still active or ended in the last six years?
  If your policy started over six years ago and you are either still using it, or it ended within the last six years: Reclaim and ask your lender for a copy of the paperwork if you no longer have it. Your chances of success may be reduced if you have been aware of the misselling for some time, you have already complained or your account is very old.

Since they (Funding Corp.) were able to make an offer, they must still have the records. So I don't understand what the problem is with the FOS referal.

Why can't you just refer the matter to the FOS in the normal way and wait for them to reject the claim if there is a reason to.

di3004

Consumerist wrote: »

I am a bit confused as to why the FOS will not pursue your claim.

According to the MSE Reclaiming Guide :-

Since they (Funding Corp.) were able to make an offer, they must still have the records. So I don't understand what the problem is with the FOS referal.

I am confused on this too Consumerist, and if this is the case then why have myself, hubby and others been successful this year in reclaims going back as far as 2001?

I totally agree with you on Dee's case here, the Funding Corp did make an offer in the first place, so therefore must have had something to work on - on data, strange isn't it?

Consumerist

I am reluctant to suggest that Dee may have been misinformed by the FOS staff but I am inclined to think this could be the case. There may have been a misunderstanding from the conversation.

I understand that the FSA and OFT will not get involved because they simply do not get involved in specific cases.

I strongly suggest that the Funding Corp offer and its withdrawal are referred to the FOS in the normal way and without delay. Given that the six-year limit for record-keeping will expire in November (and the consequential incentive for Funding Corp to destroy records for this policy), you might ask the FOS to deal with it as an urgent case.

marshallka

Consumerist wrote: »

I am reluctant to suggest that Dee may have been misinformed by the FOS staff but I am inclined to think this could be the case. There may have been a misunderstanding from the conversation.

I understand that the FSA and OFT will not get involved because they simply do not get involved in specific cases.

I strongly suggest that the Funding Corp offer and its withdrawal are referred to the FOS in the normal way and without delay. Given that the six-year limit for record-keeping will expire in November (and the consequential incentive for Funding Corp to destroy records for this policy), you might ask the FOS to deal with it as an urgent case.

Were the Funding Corporation under FOS jurisdiction in 2002 when the policy was sold. This may be the reason that FOS cannot get involved in it as its outside of their jurisdicition.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

I am confused on this too Consumerist, and if this is the case then why have myself, hubby and others been successful this year in reclaims going back as far as 2001?

I totally agree with you on Dee's case here, the Funding Corp did make an offer in the first place, so therefore must have had something to work on - on data, strange isn't it?

Because your cases going back to 2001 were whereby the firm was actually a bank or member of the GISC at the time of the sale hence under jurisdiction. I had a case once that went back this far and it was dismissed cause the firm were not under their jurisdiction at the time of the actual sale.

Consumerist

marshallka wrote: »

Because your cases going back to 2001 were whereby the firm was actually a bank or member of the GISC at the time of the sale hence under jurisdiction. I had a case once that went back this far and it was dismissed cause the firm were not under their jurisdiction at the time of the actual sale.

Thanks for that marshallka. I have been following this thread, on and off, but seem to have missed the point on this one. My apologies to Dee, as well.

Did you pursue your particular case any further?