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

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

''We can pass information to the FSA and the OFT about any business they regulate or license that fails to co-operate with us. The FSA can – and does – take action against firms it regulates that refuse to do what the ombudsman has requested. And the OFT can take away or restrict the licence of businesses that break the rules.''

If the FSA can and does have the right to take enforcement action for failing to cooperate with the FOS, then non-cooperation is no right at all.

If they are ''allowed'' to remain silent then it necessarily follows that the FSA wouldn't be allowed to take action against them.

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

''We can pass information to the FSA and the OFT about any business they regulate or license that fails to co-operate with us. The FSA can – and does – take action against firms it regulates that refuse to do what the ombudsman has requested. And the OFT can take away or restrict the licence of businesses that break the rules.''

If the FSA can and does have the right to take enforcement action for failing to cooperate with the FOS, then non-cooperation is no right at all.

If they are ''allowed'' to remain silent then it necessarily follows that the FSA wouldn't be allowed to take action against them.

You still miss the point that HSBC has provided what it was asked for.

It has not made further representations because the matter is subject to the JR.

FSA Rule DISP 3.3.4R(9) gives the Ombudsman the power to dismiss a complaint if the subject matter is currently under the consideration of a court.

Generally, if a dispute is already the subject of court proceedings FOS will not get involved.

HSBC's argument seems to be that it is currently under the consideration of the court but, rather than asking the Ombudsman to dismiss it out of hand, it wants to await the outcome and then decide.

If FOS wants to report HSBC to the FSA then it can do but I suspect the FSA will give very careful consideration to the consequences to it if the banks win the JR after it has forced their hand in the opposite direction.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

You still miss the point that HSBC has provided what it was asked for.

This is purely speculative notwithstanding that the Ombudsman is not obliged to specifically ask for representation as it is required as a matter of course.

Stating that they refuse to do so is plainly a declaration of uncooperation for which DISP 1.6.1 provides:

''1.6.1 (R) A firm must cooperate fully with the Ombudsman in the handling of complaints against it.''

You'll note that the (R) denotes a rule, as opposed to guidance (G).

There is no provision in DISP (or any other authority) to unilaterally waive rules that may relate to unresolved proceedings.

NIGELK_3

My question is, whether HSBC is the only bank "refusing" to provide relevent information? I ask because Lloyds/Black Horse have agreed to pay compensation on my various PPI reclaims stating that no hold will be placed on payout.
Also, I thought the banks were ASKING for a JR ie. the courts will decide whether to grant one or not at the end of January. Surely it is only if a JR takes place that the banks may be allowed to with-hold information by the FSA?

tifo

magpiecottage wrote: »

FSA Rule DISP 3.3.4R(9) gives the Ombudsman the power to dismiss a complaint if the subject matter is currently under the consideration of a court.

None of the parties within the complaint are at any court proceedings on the subject matter.

The BBA is requesting a JR but that does not mean the bank is "at court".

Mr_CMC

NIGELK wrote: »

My question is, whether HSBC is the only bank "refusing" to provide relevent information? I ask because Lloyds/Black Horse have agreed to pay compensation on my various PPI reclaims stating that no hold will be placed on payout.
Also, I thought the banks were ASKING for a JR ie. the courts will decide whether to grant one or not at the end of January. Surely it is only if a JR takes place that the banks may be allowed to with-hold information by the FSA?

I can confirm that we have had many Lloyds/Black Horse complaints upheld, post JR announcement.

In fact we had 7 from Black Horse alone today, all were processed initially back in late November.

rodo_2

Everyone seems to be missing the point here.
The banks, all of them, have been flouting their customers for years and now that we, the tax payers, are trying to get what is owed to us, everyone is arguing about it. What everyone should do is collectively, through this site if possible, is lobby the government to pass legislation to make the banks comply. They have been given millions and just laugh in the face of anyone who tries to get a business loan, a reasonable mortgage, or a reasonable return for their money.
My bank statement has a healthy balance of £1000. The interest paid by the bank is a miserly 0.25p. It's no wonder that anything I have over £1000 goes into another bank with a guaranteed interest of 2.5%+ until the bank rate changes and not just for 12 months. It's always guaranteed to be above the B of E base rate. And it isn't offshore and that is after tax.:)

dunstonh

The banks, all of them, have been flouting their customers for years and now that we, the tax payers, are trying to get what is owed to us, everyone is arguing about it.

Yes, the banks have been overselling products that were either unsuitable or using incorrect sales processes. However, that doesnt mean all the sales were bad. I can't see what the tax status of an individual has to do with it though. Plus, this thread is not about banks mis-selling. Its about the accusation from MSE about HSBC using dirty tactics (or not) in their response to the FOS.

What everyone should do is collectively, through this site if possible, is lobby the government to pass legislation to make the banks comply.

There is no need for this as the current system is fine. Plus, there is a lot of merit in what the banks are arguing against the FSA. I just wish they had perhaps chosen a better product class to argue their case. If it is their belief that the FSA is in the wrong legally then they have the right to challenge that.

My bank statement has a healthy balance of £1000. The interest paid by the bank is a miserly 0.25p. It's no wonder that anything I have over £1000 goes into another bank with a guaranteed interest of 2.5%+ until the bank rate changes and not just for 12 months. It's always guaranteed to be above the B of E base rate. And it isn't offshore and that is after tax.

Noting to do with this subject though. You can pick holes in a range of things the banks do but that doesnt mean everything they do is bad.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

this thread is not about banks mis-selling. Its about the accusation from MSE about HSBC using dirty tactics (or not) in their response to the FOS.

The banks deliberately waste a lot of time in delaying PPI claims (or any other claim through the FOS). I've had this on all my claims but mainly on the PPI. In each case, the bank wasted 2.5 years before the FOS made their decision and then wouldn't send me the refund. On a few occasions the FOS had to chase them. But this was before the JR. In all cases, the delay was the bank not responding to the FOS who have no powers to force them to respond (or so they told me). I kept asking the FOS what use are they if they have no powers and have been asking for many years. They simply make a decision in favour of the bank who then refuses to correspond further, citing the FOS adjudication.

I've even had a few banks admit the FOS were wrong and they couldn't understand the decision but they are then obliged to use the decision against me.

Before anyone accuses me of not posting on the subject matter, this is my experience of PPI claims and banks' delaying tactics.

tifo

The banks deliberately waste a lot of time in delaying PPI claims (or any other claim through the FOS). I've had this on all my claims but mainly on the PPI. In each case, the bank wasted 2.5 years before the FOS made their decision and then wouldn't send me the refund. On a few occasions the FOS had to chase them. But this was before the JR. In all cases, the delay was the bank not responding to the FOS who have no powers to force them to respond (or so they told me). I kept asking the FOS what use are they if they have no powers and have been asking for many years. They simply make a decision in favour of the bank who then refuses to correspond further, citing the FOS adjudication.

I had one bank who totally refused to send me the promised refund through the FOS and some extra compensation. This was after I had sent my signed agreement to the FOS which makes it legally binding on the bank.

I've even had a few banks admit the FOS were wrong and they couldn't understand the decision but they are then obliged to use the decision against me.

Before anyone accuses me of not posting on the subject matter, this is my experience of PPI claims and banks' delaying tactics.