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

dunstonh

Mr_CMC wrote: »

Dunstoh,

I think you are a terrible actor.

Thankfully most have read between the lines vis-a-vis your woeful attempts to put the Joe public off the scent.

KEEP GOING PEOPLE!

Do not give up, it is what plants like dunny would have you do, don't fall for it.

I shall be posting more again soon, back from a winter break... and ready to go on the full attack against "them" again in 2011.

Mr CMC

I suggest you learn to read.

I have posted that there is no dirty tricks thats all. I have not said people shouldnt complain if they have a complaint. I have also quite clearly pointed out a few times that this thread isnt about the judicial review (as there is another MSE thread on that). All I have said is that the HSBC response is consistent with their position and therefore cant be considered a dirty trick.

What does the CMC stand for? Is it one of those scumbag Claims Management Companies? Perhaps thats why you are really posting against me as you don't like it when someone tells the truth against this rip off claims companies who con people into paying money up front and do little for it.

dunstonh

How is life as a scumbag IFA who advised the sale of these policies?

IFAs do hardly any PPI sales. Typically its only income protection (although PHI is more common) and MPPI (although again, thats typically mortgage advisers). The banks and finance companies by far do the majority of PPI. Plus, advised cases, where an adviser is involved, have a few higher standard than those where no adviser was involved.

Alpine_Star

''Firms' refusal to pay their case fees to the FOS until the outcome of a judicial review into PPI mis-selling could exhaust the Ombudsman's reserves in six weeks........''

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/1935896/ppi-revolt-exhaust-fos-reserves-weeks

magpiecottage

Having just read this thread, DunstonH seems to be talking sense but most other posters seem to be going off half cocked.

When FOS receives a complaint, it sends the respondent firm a letter asking for copies of the documentation. From what this supposed "revelation" says, HSBC has done just that.

It might not be what FOS expected or what you might like but it IS within the rules.

They are also saying they would like the matter to await the outcome of the planned JR.

If they did not say so then an adjudicator may spend time dealing with it only for HSBC to then reject the adjudicator's decision and ask for an Ombudsman to consider it. It has a right to do that.

And they have no appeal of an Ombudsman's decision.

Regardless of this, do not bother using Mr CMC. He cannot get you ANYTHING that you would not be able to get for yourself but even if he doesn't charge up front he will take a heavy slice of whatever he does achieve - plus a further 20% VAT!

Doing it yourself will only cost you about £5 in post and materials even if it goes all the way to the Ombudsman and it would probably cost you about the same communicating with Mr CMC anyway.

Don't let him fool you into thinking he has some fancy legal arguments. All you need to do is tell your lender that you do not think you should have been sold the PPI. There is no need for legal terms or financial services jargon - or even correct spelling. You only need to make sure they understand what you are trying to say.

And as far as filling in the FOS form is concerned, if you telephone FOS, they will fill it in for you and send it to you to sign and return - all for the cost of the call (they will even call you back if you are worried about the cost of the call).

The benefits of using an Claims Management Company to pursue a PPI complaint can be counted on the fingers of one finger and still have something left over.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

When FOS receives a complaint, it sends the respondent firm a letter asking for copies of the documentation. From what this supposed "revelation" says, HSBC has done just that.

It might not be what FOS expected or what you might like but it IS within the rules.

The article clearly states ''In this instance, HSBC provided standard paperwork such as product literature and the original credit agreement but it did not submit any written defence or additional information the Ombudsman requires.''

To deliberately not cooperate with their obligations to the FOS, the inescapable conclusion is that HSBC are not acting within the rules.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The article clearly states ''In this instance, HSBC provided standard paperwork such as product literature and the original credit agreement but it did not submit any written defence or additional information the Ombudsman requires.''

To deliberately not cooperate with their obligations to the FOS, the inescapable conclusion is that HSBC are not acting within the rules.

The article seems flawed because we do not know what FOS asked for.

The initial letters from FOS to firms that I see simply ask for "the account opening documentation including all signed agreements", "any supporting documentation you wish us to take into account" and "Your comments on the complaint".

The article says HSBC has sent the account opening documentation. It has also commented on the complaint by asking FOS to await the judicial review.

So, unless FOS asked for something different - and nobody (except perhaps FOS and HSBC) seems to have any evidence that it did, this is a non-story!

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

The article seems flawed because we do not know what FOS asked for.

The initial letters from FOS to firms that I see simply ask for "the account opening documentation including all signed agreements", "any supporting documentation you wish us to take into account" and "Your comments on the complaint".

The article says HSBC has sent the account opening documentation. It has also commented on the complaint by asking FOS to await the judicial review.

So, unless FOS asked for something different - and nobody (except perhaps FOS and HSBC) seems to have any evidence that it did, this is a non-story!

The article states that the FOS says "Where businesses do not set out clear views on cases, it will be difficult for our adjudicators to resolve cases informally. Inevitably, this can only result in further delays and additional costs."

This is because the FOS require it to determined that outcome of the complaint - and of course the bank knows it.

The article also states that HSBC refused to do so "We do not intend to make representations in respect of this complaint at the present time.''

So it doesn't matter if the FOS asked for it or not as if they hadn't HSBC have pre-empted any request for it by categorically stating that they're not going to get it. That is the story.

Mr_CMC

magpiecottage wrote: »

Having just read this thread, DunstonH seems to be talking sense but most other posters seem to be going off half cocked.

When FOS receives a complaint, it sends the respondent firm a letter asking for copies of the documentation. From what this supposed "revelation" says, HSBC has done just that.

It might not be what FOS expected or what you might like but it IS within the rules.

They are also saying they would like the matter to await the outcome of the planned JR.

If they did not say so then an adjudicator may spend time dealing with it only for HSBC to then reject the adjudicator's decision and ask for an Ombudsman to consider it. It has a right to do that.

And they have no appeal of an Ombudsman's decision.

Regardless of this, do not bother using Mr CMC. He cannot get you ANYTHING that you would not be able to get for yourself but even if he doesn't charge up front he will take a heavy slice of whatever he does achieve - plus a further 20% VAT!

Doing it yourself will only cost you about £5 in post and materials even if it goes all the way to the Ombudsman and it would probably cost you about the same communicating with Mr CMC anyway.

Don't let him fool you into thinking he has some fancy legal arguments. All you need to do is tell your lender that you do not think you should have been sold the PPI. There is no need for legal terms or financial services jargon - or even correct spelling. You only need to make sure they understand what you are trying to say.

And as far as filling in the FOS form is concerned, if you telephone FOS, they will fill it in for you and send it to you to sign and return - all for the cost of the call (they will even call you back if you are worried about the cost of the call).

The benefits of using an Claims Management Company to pursue a PPI complaint can be counted on the fingers of one finger and still have something left over.

Could not agree with you more.

Everybody who comes onto this forum should be doing it themselves, i would imagine most do.

Have had 6 PM's requesting my help, all have been rebuffed and advised to follow the advice on this wonderful forum.

Our aim is to help those who are not as proactive as those that manage to find this and other forums.

Part of our regulation is to advise clients they can do this for themselves, the laughable responses we get would make for a very nice audio montage.

I bid you a good day.

Mr CMC

tifo

Our processing of PPI complaints is in line with BBA guidance for members waiting for resolution to the judicial review

As if the BBA have any legal standing .... its a trade organisation working for the best interests of its members, not consumers.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The article states that the FOS says "Where businesses do not set out clear views on cases, it will be difficult for our adjudicators to resolve cases informally. Inevitably, this can only result in further delays and additional costs."

This is because the FOS require it to determined that outcome of the complaint - and of course the bank knows it.

The article also states that HSBC refused to do so "We do not intend to make representations in respect of this complaint at the present time.''

So it doesn't matter if the FOS asked for it or not as if they hadn't HSBC have pre-empted any request for it by categorically stating that they're not going to get it. That is the story.

I think you will find they still have the right to remain silent.

FOS may not like the way they have responded but that is not the same as saying they are not allowed to.

It also does not stop the adjudicator for making a decision - if (s)he, has the ability to do so. However, if it went against HSBC over an issue that they are seeking a JR on then the matter would almost certainly be referred to an Ombudsman.

Again, there is nothing to prevent HSBC doing so.

Even if the Ombudsman then found against HSBC, it is probable that any redress would await the completion of the JR.

I do not know if the banks have a valid case or not. They obviously think they have because they are spending a great deal of money on it after taking legal advice.

Nobody expected them to win on bank charges but they did, so I think it would be unwise to simply assume they will fail.

On the other hand, if they simply roll over and pay out they will not be able to recover the money if the JR goes in their favour.

Remember too, that redress is likely to end up being paid by shareholders. Although it is not so for HSBC or Barclays, for RBS, NatWest, Northern Rock, Lloyds TSB and HBOS that means, to a greater or lesser extent, the taxpayer.

Even for HSBC and Barclays, our pension funds may hold some shares in them.

So when your tax goes up and your pension fund goes down, all that redress will have played a part in that.

I am not saying redress should not be paid for missold policies - I believe it should.

I am simply pointing out that paying redress affects us all - whether it is paid as a result of a missale or a complaint being upheld when it should not have been.