MSE News: Leaked letter reveals banks' dirty tricks on PPI reclaiming

jamesd

It's not a request when your regulator the FSA tells you to cooperate and you refuse. That's something that can prompt action by the regulator.

dunstonh

jamesd wrote: »

It's not a request when your regulator the FSA tells you to cooperate and you refuse. That's something that can prompt action by the regulator.

James, thats not dirty tricks though.

The banks totally disagree with the FSAs retrospective rule changes. The FSA has been prone to this over the years but its not really affected the banks until now. The Banks have taken a stance that is well publicised and known about. The FSA has been wrong before and had to make changes. The banks are challenging the FSA ruling.

Whether you agree with that position or not is a different matter but that isnt the issue this thread is covering. There is already an MSE news thread on that subject.

This thread is indicating that HSBC are employing dirty tricks. Yet there is nothing in the article to suggest any dirty tricks. HSBC have just written what their position is at this time. There is no underhand tactics or dirty tricks being used. They have publicly said one thing and the response [in the complaint in the article] matches that.

bonjen3

So if you are one of the people who have had their claim put on hold until the court case what should you do? wait until after the court case to see what happens or forward complaint to the ombudsman?

amersall

bonjen3 wrote: »

So if you are one of the people who have had their claim put on hold until the court case what should you do? wait until after the court case to see what happens or forward complaint to the ombudsman?

After 8 weeks you can put a complaint into the fos,enclose a copy of the letter from the bank and then wait.

ILW

I have some sympathy with the banks here, admitting any sort of liability when the actual "offence" has not yet been tested in a court would just be plain stupid. I believe under British law a defendent has a right to to say nothing that they feel may incriminate themselves.

Alpine_Star

ILW wrote: »

I believe under British law a defendent has a right to to say nothing that they feel may incriminate themselves.

Indeed but the banks are not defendants in any legal proceedings. The FOS is not a court of law and thus the right doesn't apply.

ILW

Can the FOS force disclosure by law?

Alpine_Star

ILW wrote: »

I have some sympathy with the banks here, admitting any sort of liability when the actual "offence" has not yet been tested in a court would just be plain stupid.

Also the ''offence'' in this instance - not cooperating with the FOS in defiance of an authority (FSA) is not the issue that is subject to be tested in court.

Alpine_Star

ILW wrote: »

Can the FOS force disclosure by law?

No but the FSA can.

ILW

Have they?