newcomers, and die hard reclaimers

amersall

Please take a look at this if you have a claim rejected by the banks
this was originally posted by catharsis.



FSA 10/12, FSA 10/36 PPI Complaints Resolution Instrument, sections 3.3.5 to 3.3.13
3.3.5 G The firm should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
3.3.6 G The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.
3.3.7 G The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.
3.3.8 G The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.
3.3.9 G In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).
3.3.10 G The firm should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact give advice in a particular sale. The firm should consider the available evidence and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly or implicitly) to the complainant.
3.3.11 G The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant’s information needs.
3.3.12 G In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant’s information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:
(1) the complainant’s individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firm should take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant’s objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable customer’s perspective, the documentation provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient information was communicated during the sale discussion for the customer to make an informed decision (for example, did the firm give an oral explanation of the main characteristics of the policy or specifically draw the complainant’s attention to that information on a computer screen or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the firm in response to questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
3.3.13 G The firm should not reject a complaint solely because the complainant had held a payment protection contract previously.
ASSOCIATED DEBT
In addition, there is now provision for the return of all late payment fees, excess charges, overdraft interest and charges linked to PPI mis-selling or which "flows from it". I am using this argument and hope it works. It did with Barclays, they refunded £350 worth of late payment fees over 21 years and £300 interest this week. if you loans and overdrafts etc are linked through the same bank acount then use this provision. I am also demanding that all negative credit records are annulled, again with success using this clause: -
"3.9.2 In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm’s breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract’s cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penalty interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender."
Policy 10/12 states clearly that over the next few months the FSA will become more stringent in its penalties, described in Section 4, Monitoring, paras 4.3 to 4.8 summarized thus: -
“In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.” FSA Policy 10/12, Section 4.8
Maybe a new sticky is needed? The lenders from december MUST contact people who are not aware they have been mis-sold PPI. I think many of the lenders are completely unprepared for this, we will see many more massive fines as a result.

di3004

Good one amersall.:T:T;)

liberty_lily

Thanks amersall - I am hoping to reclaim charges on a current account directly caused by the addition of mis-sold PPI. The T&Cs of the loan stated that the current account with the same bank had to be utilised to service the loan repayments and the higher repayments including the PPI caused many charges to be incurred.

This info will hopefully be most useful :T