MSE News: Banks put PPI claims on hold in defiance of regulator

kpwll

I received a letter in September from FOS re credit card claim against LTSB (been with them since May 08, upheld May 09 but ignored by Lloyds, then up held again and ignored and was in the queue for the Ombudsman**) stating that Lloyds had now agreed to settle the matter in accordance with FOS rules. Signed the acceptance and sent it back to FOS. Was a bit(!!!) concerned at what's going on so this morning I phoned the FOS. They told me that as far as they were concerned it was business as usual and they were processing my claim for Lloyds BUT until they received clarification from their legal team they did not know what was happening with any claims.
It has been over 3 years since I 1st contacted Lloyds about this, I just hope it hasn't collapsed at the last hurdle.

** I have read that quite a few people have been sent similar letters to mine and (being the cynical person I am) I'm wondering if Lloyds have agreed to settle so that we are taken off the Ombudsman's list (which of course is binding if found in your favour) so that they still don't have to pay out until much later if at all!!!!
I just hope I'm seeing conspiracies and not fact.

marshallka

kpwll wrote: »

I received a letter in September from FOS re credit card claim against LTSB (been with them since May 08, upheld May 09 but ignored by Lloyds, then up held again and ignored and was in the queue for the Ombudsman**) stating that Lloyds had now agreed to settle the matter in accordance with FOS rules. Signed the acceptance and sent it back to FOS. Was a bit(!!!) concerned at what's going on so this morning I phoned the FOS. They told me that as far as they were concerned it was business as usual and they were processing my claim for Lloyds BUT until they received clarification from their legal team they did not know what was happening with any claims.
It has been over 3 years since I 1st contacted Lloyds about this, I just hope it hasn't collapsed at the last hurdle.

** I have read that quite a few people have been sent similar letters to mine and (being the cynical person I am) I'm wondering if Lloyds have agreed to settle so that we are taken off the Ombudsman's list (which of course is binding if found in your favour) so that they still don't have to pay out until much later if at all!!!!
I just hope I'm seeing conspiracies and not fact.

Wow, a long time waiting then since first complaining... I wonder whether if you took this to court they could throw out the case under the limitations act in that you have to bring it to court within 3 years of being reasonably aware... I would get some legal advice on this TBH...

amersall

Brian Capon, a spokesman for the British Bankers’ Association, said the ban may result in more bankruptcy filings by people who don’t have a financial safety net.
“There is a real danger that this will result in fewer people taking out PPI, leaving them with no protection if they lose their job,” Capon said today in a statement. :rotfl::rotfl:Dont make me laugh, this happens with ppi in place.Just trying to "justify" why they should force this lucrative (for them) ppi onto people. This is a slur on consumers as we are being seen as not having a brain and cannot think for our selves.
we will take insurance to cover financial transactions,but we must be allowed to make our own choices and not be pushed into taking a ppi that will net the sales person a ""bonus".

Banning point-of-sale PPI could ultimately reduce sales And commissions :rotfl:. because customers who have more time Ditto. to consider the product might decide they don’t need or want it,This is 100% what we want, freedom of choice with no pressure. the Competition Commission said in the report.

kpwll

As soon as I became aware of this I contacted Lloyds, we were to-ing and fro-ing with phone calls and letters. As soon as I had my 'Final Decision' letter I took it to the FOS so I was within the scope of the Limitation Act.
Below you will find what I put in 1 of my letters to Lloyds and they gave no comeback to this:

As I only found out about the mis-selling of PPI in August 2007, due to the adverse publicity PPI mis-selling was receiving, I was unable to inform you of my concerns years ago but did so at the earliest time available, September 2007.
I believe that the Limitation Act 1980 covers this eventuality and therefore also covers the fact that the insurance was taken out over six years ago, but cancelled only four years ago.



The Limitation Act 1980 states:
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant's agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.

It could also be argued that it is down to Lloyds that the 6 years have elapsed due to their time-wasting. Also they have agreed to pay out so they would have to explain why it ended up in court.

marshallka

kpwll wrote: »

As soon as I became aware of this I contacted Lloyds, we were to-ing and fro-ing with phone calls and letters. As soon as I had my 'Final Decision' letter I took it to the FOS so I was within the scope of the Limitation Act.
Below you will find what I put in 1 of my letters to Lloyds and they gave no comeback to this:

As I only found out about the mis-selling of PPI in August 2007, due to the adverse publicity PPI mis-selling was receiving, I was unable to inform you of my concerns years ago but did so at the earliest time available, September 2007.
I believe that the Limitation Act 1980 covers this eventuality and therefore also covers the fact that the insurance was taken out over six years ago, but cancelled only four years ago.



The Limitation Act 1980 states:
(c) the action is for relief from the consequences of a mistake;
the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
References in this subsection to the defendant include references to the defendant's agent and to any person through whom the defendant claims and his agent.

It could also be argued that it is down to Lloyds that the 6 years have elapsed due to their time-wasting. Also they have agreed to pay out so they would have to explain why it ended up in court.

I would just ask FOS again and see what they suggest or even the OFT or the FSA and get something in writing. They must have some rules here about this legally binding thing that FOS quotes.

marshallka

amersall wrote: »

Brian Capon, a spokesman for the British Bankers’ Association, said the ban may result in more bankruptcy filings by people who don’t have a financial safety net.
“There is a real danger that this will result in fewer people taking out PPI, leaving them with no protection if they lose their job,” Capon said today in a statement. :rotfl::rotfl:Dont make me laugh, this happens with ppi in place.Just trying to "justify" why they should force this lucrative (for them) ppi onto people. This is a slur on consumers as we are being seen as not having a brain and cannot think for our selves.
we will take insurance to cover financial transactions,but we must be allowed to make our own choices and not be pushed into taking a ppi that will net the sales person a ""bonus".

Banning point-of-sale PPI could ultimately reduce sales And commissions :rotfl:. because customers who have more time Ditto. to consider the product might decide they don’t need or want it,This is 100% what we want, freedom of choice with no pressure. the Competition Commission said in the report.

And didn't the OFT find that of the actual claims on insurance only something like 15% paid out....

gross profit margins appear high - although there is a lack of information on profitability, an indication of high profitability is provided by claims ratios - PPI claims ratios are estimated to be 15 - 20 per cent, which is low compared to other general insurance products, for example, claims ratios for motor insurance are 74 per cent and household insurance are 55.2 per cent.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/OFTwork/markets-work/super-complaints/insurance

The_Pixi

In January Santander wrote to me saying that I took out a loan and I may have been mis-sold PPI!

They gave me all the information I needed to decide if I thought I had, then I called them and said I thought I had been.

2 Weeks later I got an offer of about £270 (interest included)

So why is everyone else having such a hard time?

amersall

The_Pixi wrote: »

In January Santander wrote to me saying that I took out a loan and I may have been mis-sold PPI!

They gave me all the information I needed to decide if I thought I had, then I called them and said I thought I had been.

2 Weeks later I got an offer of about £270 (interest included)

So why is everyone else having such a hard time?

Hi there and well done on your win :beer:
Some banks
do the "right thing" And some "dont".:rotfl::rotfl: santander are really good with ppi mis sell,and it just shows how at the top of their game they are when they are looking over old loans, especially in january (as is the case with yours)when they did not have to at that time.x

Paul1234

Santander had a bad customer reputation & are doing all they can to repair it by making themselves look better in the eyes of the consumer. As for the other banks they don't care, the longer they take and more complaints they refute the less money they pay-out

The_Pixi

Well there you go then, I guess Santander isn't always rubbish. :beer: As was mentioned above, they didn't have to and to be honest I would never have even realised I had been done over originally :rotfl:

good luck everyone else.