FOS upheld complaint against Norton !

src007

This is some weird idea thought up by the FSA which I can only see being misused and misunderstood.

The financial organisation argues that, had you not bought the terrible expensive policy that in fact they sold, you would have bought an ''imaginary'' better policy (which wasn't even on sale).

The financial firm then deduct the ''imaginary'' policy from the refund leaving you out of pocket from what you would have got had you complained two years ago.

Now the FSA have let it out the bag the FOS it seems, have to follow (and they really are following!). To work out the amount they will deduct you need to know the monthly loan payment (not the total). For every £100 of monthly loan payment they will deduct £9 per month. So if your loan payment is £200 they will deduct £18 from your refund for every month the PPI was running.

I've already seen it used to argue a consumer is due £0 as a refund, for a policy that the firm acknowledged was mis-sold.

The FSA are a strange bunch of people.

src007

ANY_CHANCE wrote: »

.I dont understand how much this would be on a £12000 PPI payment
So £1080??? WT..??

The adjudicator has said this is fair and reaasonable ...I dont think so

And why dont they give an example of how much this would be in their offer/letter to give the average person an idea of what this means in real terms

The FOS very rarely go into figures and just expect the consumer to understand weird terminology like this. Even people without a 'A' grade' in GSCS in Maths.

This is despite the fact that (in credit to the FOS) they expect financial firms to explain things to consumers in language they can understand.

src007

What you could ask is:

When the first adjudicator upheld the complaint- What did the adjudicator think was fair and reasonable?

The answer = 'a full refund with interest'

When the second adjudicator upheld the complaint -What did the adjudicator think was fair and reasonable?

The answer = 'a full refund with interest MINUS an ''imaginary policy''.

Why should what is 'fair and reasonable' change over time?

amersall

You learn something new everyday :D
I did not know that the FOS and FSA had psychic powers

How do they know that you would have taken insurance from the get go,doesnt matter what type it is, most people dont take insurance at all.

:mad:I hope this will not be open to all banks,and all ppi mis sells will be done in this way :mad::mad:

Another thought, you have lost the use of cover on this "imaginary" insurance".
So what have you paid for??.

Is that a mis sell too,as you had a policy you did not know about:rotfl::rotfl:
Better get a claim into the FSA ASAP:D:cool:

themass

I am about to go into battle with Norton,, suprise they did not feel our policy was mis sold ,, i hope to god that FOS are storting to get the picture with these people,,,,as for this new ruling ie imaginary" insurance i will clearly state we did not need cover as policies elsewhere were already in place,,, so full refund, 8% interest plus compo please.

ANY_CHANCE

I am not going to accept the alternative offer from Norton...so then it is up to the ombudsman to make a decision about how much is fair and reasonable

Riggsy1367

ANY_CHANCE wrote: »

I am not going to accept the alternative offer from Norton...so then it is up to the ombudsman to make a decision about how much is fair and reasonable

Good luck and everything is crossed for you!

src007

ANY_CHANCE wrote: »

I am not going to accept the alternative offer from Norton...so then it is up to the ombudsman to make a decision about how much is fair and reasonable

The 'alternative redress' rule came in, with the new guidance that come into force on 1st December 2010. It was the 1st December rules that the banks challenged in court with their Judical Review.

I suspect Norton Finance will argue that they are allowed to use this approach because it is now in the FSA rule book (the second half of the screen in the link below). Although we all know Norton would argue Black is White if it saves them money. :rotfl:

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP/App/3/7

I think this is a new area for the Ombudsman Service to consider so its hard to say under what circumstances they're going to agree with the business and when the will agree with the consumer.

Things to to bear in mind-

1) There's no guarantee an Ombudsman will agree the policy was mis-sold at all! So you need to be sure you're not throwing away an offer. Although, if two adjudicators have found in your favour it sounds as if you have a strong case for mis-sellings.

2) The Ombudsman may or may not agree that the 'alternative redress' is appropriate.

3) From the size of your loan it looks like the 'alternative redress' could be quite a big deduction (possibly running into four figures). If I were you I might continue. Although the wait for an Ombudsman at the moment is ridiculous so if you want a quick outcome this isn't a good option!

Good luck!

ANY_CHANCE

Thanks you have pointed out a few things to consider,

All in all I am going to carry on I have waited 3 years on this complaint I may as well carry on.

ANY_CHANCE

src007 wrote: »

Things to to bear in mind-

1) There's no guarantee an Ombudsman will agree the policy was mis-sold at all! So you need to be sure you're not throwing away an offer. Although, if two adjudicators have found in your favour it sounds as if you have a strong case for mis-sellings. Also the adjudicator said Norton are also upholding my complaint so they do not deny mis selling so with this I am also hoping that the Ombudsman will reach the same decision (fingers crossed)

2) The Ombudsman may or may not agree that the 'alternative redress' is appropriate. nothing to lose apart from time and hope that Norton doesnt go bust or something while waiting!

3) From the size of your loan it looks like the 'alternative redress' could be quite a big deduction (possibly running into four figures). If I were you I might continue. Although the wait for an Ombudsman at the moment is ridiculous so if you want a quick outcome this isn't a good option![COLOR="rgb(139, 0, 0)"]The adjudicator said our claim was on the fast track due to the length of time it had taken and it was partly FOS fault for much of the time wasted[/COLOR]

Good luck!

Thanks we need it