Bemused at adjudicator's notes...

mutron_2

After what seems like a lifetime, the FOS, this week, have rejected one of our PPI claims. We intend to appeal but are disappointed with the adjudicator's notes...

[the lender] may not have adequately explained the terms and conditions of the policy, such as the cost and potential monthly benefit that would be paid for in return of the premiums...

Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely this is a key point in the misselling of any policy? I note from the FSA website that they (FSA that is) have issued severe financial penalties to lenders purely on this basis so why would the FOS use this in their decision?

Also, the adjudicator seems to have missed key bits of information from our evidence so, I have to say, we're disappointed with them so far...

maxdp

mutron wrote: »

After what seems like a lifetime, the FOS, this week, have rejected one of our PPI claims. We intend to appeal but are disappointed with the adjudicator's notes...



Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely this is a key point in the misselling of any policy? I note from the FSA website that they (FSA that is) have issued severe financial penalties to lenders purely on this basis so why would the FOS use this in their decision?

Also, the adjudicator seems to have missed key bits of information from our evidence so, I have to say, we're disappointed with them so far...

Hi There

Sorry to hear about the decision. You can of course take it to the Ombudsman for a final decision. Make sure you reply to the letter and point out all the bits you feel have been missed out or that you disagree with. Good luck with this.

halphy

Thats bad, Good Luck with it, write back as Max says, I'd also say that a main misselling point?

shortchanged_2

To be fair that decision does sound laughable. The FOS are a waste of time.
If you plan to take it further the adjudicator will probably tell you that they have already discussed the matter with an Ombudsman so the outcome will likely be the same.

Reassuringly though, you don't have to accept the FOS's decision and are still free to take this matter to court.

di3004

Hi Mutron

Sorry to hear that.

If you any further information to add, then write it alll down for the ombudsman to reconsider, so if you feel your complaint have been overlooked make this clear.

I have came across a few rejections on here and other sites by the FOS/adjudicator's over the last few weeks, but do not give up, good luck.;)

marshallka

Are FOS beginning to back the banks maybe then??

di3004

Think it was the other day on either the success or discussion thread that this happened to someone else too, and sure there are others as well.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Think it was the other day on either the success or discussion thread that this happened to someone else too, and sure there are others as well.

Change of way of thinking maybe? The only thing that I can think of thats changed is the government.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Change of way of thinking maybe? The only thing that I can think of thats changed is the government.

Yeah that's possible.

Came across this on the FOS website...
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/about/IA_terms_reference.htm

the independent assessor.

Have not read through it properly yet though.

shortchanged_2

To be honest that sounds a little contradictory.

An independent assessor who is appointed by the board!!!

Also the FOS board don't have to adhere to her findings so it's only a bit of window dressing for the waste of space that is the FOS.

dunstonh

Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely this is a key point in the misselling of any policy? I note from the FSA website that they (FSA that is) have issued severe financial penalties to lenders purely on this basis so why would the FOS use this in their decision?

Also, the adjudicator seems to have missed key bits of information from our evidence so, I have to say, we're disappointed with them so far...

The adjudicator uses the term "may not". Which also covers off "may have". From that they appear to be saying that they may not have told you but then they may have. In other words there is no proof to back up your claims. You have edited the response to only show part of it so its impossible for us to place it in context. You also dont say what type of PPI it is.

Based on what you have said, their response seems reasonable but we are having to go on a lot of assumptions because of your editing and lack of information.

Change of way of thinking maybe? The only thing that I can think of thats changed is the government.

There is an increasing awareness of the number of try-it-on complaints and fraudulent complaints. In the past there has been an acknowledgement of this and sometimes later complaints get rejected where earlier ones did not. However, there hasnt been any real specific information. Maybe we are just moving into that stage with PPI now. Remember the adjudicators in the early days don't notice the template letters or wording style but after a while of doing many they too learn to spot the complaints and wordings which have appeared on dozens of other complaints they have had before. It's inevitable that they end up being cynical if the template letter they are reading is the 20th one they have seen that week. Especially if a number of items on the template letter dont apply or can be easily proven to be incorrect.

The Conservatives, before elected, did acknowledge that there were too many opportunistic complaints and that the system actually encouraged it and it ought to be looked at. However, the Coalition Govt have made no noises on that front.