Financial Ombudsman Unbiased? I think not!

Alpine_Star

PPI_Technichal_Expert wrote: »

By ticking and signing to that effect saying you wanted to take out ppi is documentary evidence that u knew you didn't have to have it as you could have left it blank, and also that u wanted to take it.

:eek:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf

dunstonh

Alpine_Star wrote: »

:eek:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/understood.pdf

This issue is well known but its more about areas where you are told to say you agree and understand something but you are not really in a position to make that comment. For example, if I was doing a high risk investment portfolio and then asked an inexperienced investor to sign that they understood what i was doing was right for them. That person would not be in a position to say that and any signature would be pointless.

However, on simple thing that can be understood by an individual or an agreement to proceed, its more likely that the signature would stand.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

This issue is well known but its more about areas where you are told to say you agree and understand something but you are not really in a position to make that comment. For example, if I was doing a high risk investment portfolio and then asked an inexperienced investor to sign that they understood what i was doing was right for them. That person would not be in a position to say that and any signature would be pointless.

However, on simple thing that can be understood by an individual or an agreement to proceed, its more likely that the signature would stand.

My post was in reply to a quote that stated that ticking a box that denoted 'wanting' PPI is somehow absolute proof that you actually did. Clearly the OP didn't.

It's a question of true and informed consent and the principles established in the FSA (and OFT) document apply.

dalc87

PPI_Technichal_Expert wrote: »

I understand your point about feeling that you had to tick the box to get the loan, but did u read what it said? By ticking and signing to that effect saying you wanted to take out ppi is documentary evidence that u knew you didn't have to have it as you could have left it blank, and also that u wanted to take it. What evidence have you got to go against this? pretty much nothing. When the fos make decisions they do it based on the evidence. If you say u wernt aware it was optional but the document u signed says you did, and this is the only evidence, then there is only one outcome I'm afriad! Ge ur adjudicator to chase them for a phone recording, but if u said it was sold over the phone then I imagine the adjudicator wud havr requested it! If not, ask him to get a call script. Even then, I doubt a call script is going to have anything onerous on it. So basically, ur not going to win, I know it sucks, but its the reality. Sorry cudnt be of more help!

I did read what it said when it was originally sent to me and I told them that I didn't want it and pointed out that the form said it was optional. They said that the form was just a standard form used for everyone and that the 'optional' part of it was for people with more 'sufficient means of repayment'. My bank decided that I couldn't pay back if I was out of work or sick and told me that I had to have the PPI and that it was not optional despite what was written. What could I do? When I said that I wouldn't take the loan if I had to have PPI the guy called my bluff and said fine, don't take the loan. Basically, as I originally did an online application for a loan the sales person would have received no commission for that hence why he probably kept pushing the PPI.
I hope that you are wrong and that I do have a case. Many people keep saying that FOS will consider my case like a court. A court would throw out a case based on a 'confession' that was signed under pressure so I live in hope that they rule in my favour.

If they do then I'll be completely debt free as the PPI covers the outstanding loan bar one payment. I can easily afford the payments but for me it is the principle. Preying on naive people to gain a quick buck and not thinking of the long term.

Thanks for everyones help and comments so far. :rotfl:

worldsnooker147

my claim against HSBC is kinda similar, it has being ongoing for a year and in the hands of the onbudsman for bout 5 months

i was pressured into signing the PPI policy, otherwise they wouldnt have given me the loan, i did a phone application and went into the bank to sign the papers(which incidentally had all 'X's next to the signature points, (it was 4 years ago and when i look back in hindsight)she explained the loan and really rushed through the PPI part without explaining and told me to sign at the bottom quickly!! and by the way she was an 'ADVISOR' not a clerk

to be honest i have other reasons why my claim is valid now as well as the above as i work for the NHS and get full sick pay and pension benefits etc to cover myself, so i shouldnt of even been considered for the PPI, yet they shouldve known that as it was on my application and they never even blinked at it!

.........but mine hasnt been thrown out(yet!) based on the things youve said, so i dont particularly unsderstand that

maybe the FOS on a bad day?? we dont know, but i would kick on with your case and dont give up

dunstonh

by the way she was an 'ADVISOR' not a clerk

No she wasnt. HSBC would not employ a financial adviser to do a bank clerks role. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Banks overuse the terms "adviser" and "manager". A customer services adviser carries no regulatory protection in the same was a financial adviser would. There have been calls made for the FSA to ban the use of the word adviser but individuals that are not real advisers and the title could mislead.

to be honest i have other reasons why my claim is valid now as well as the above as i work for the NHS and get full sick pay and pension benefits etc to cover myself, so i shouldnt of even been considered for the PPI, yet they shouldve known that as it was on my application and they never even blinked at it!

At the very best, you get 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. So, unless the loan term was less than 12 months then I cant see a problem with having PPI.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

No she wasnt. HSBC would not employ a financial adviser to do a bank clerks role. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Priceless.

worldsnooker147

dunstonh wrote: »

No she wasnt. HSBC would not employ a financial adviser to do a bank clerks role. It would be a complete waste of time and money.

Banks overuse the terms "adviser" and "manager". A customer services adviser carries no regulatory protection in the same was a financial adviser would. There have been calls made for the FSA to ban the use of the word adviser but individuals that are not real advisers and the title could mislead.



At the very best, you get 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. So, unless the loan term was less than 12 months then I cant see a problem with having PPI.

firstly, the woman who deals with all my cases(financial reviews etc) at the banks 'IS' an advisor, as her business card i have says so as well as her name badge, so to me she is an advisor, and if she is really not then she will surely be breaking some kind of law and that will be going on my case

secondly,yes, my NHS sick pay is 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay, but if after that ill health means i cant work then my NHS pension ill health will come into effect as iv looked into it from my employers themselves, so technically they shouldnt have sold me it, as the following kind of websites also state

http://www.nhsonline.net/reclaim/

i just emailed the adjudicator dealing with my case and got a reply instantly saying he has upheld my case based on the evidence but HSBC have disagreed with his decision(suprise suprise!) so they have requested an Ombudsman to review the adjudicators decision, so hopefully alls looking good!!

dalc87

worldsnooker147 wrote: »

my claim against HSBC is kinda similar, it has being ongoing for a year and in the hands of the onbudsman for bout 5 months

i was pressured into signing the PPI policy, otherwise they wouldnt have given me the loan, i did a phone application and went into the bank to sign the papers(which incidentally had all 'X's next to the signature points, (it was 4 years ago and when i look back in hindsight)she explained the loan and really rushed through the PPI part without explaining and told me to sign at the bottom quickly!! and by the way she was an 'ADVISOR' not a clerk

to be honest i have other reasons why my claim is valid now as well as the above as i work for the NHS and get full sick pay and pension benefits etc to cover myself, so i shouldnt of even been considered for the PPI, yet they shouldve known that as it was on my application and they never even blinked at it!

.........but mine hasnt been thrown out(yet!) based on the things youve said, so i dont particularly unsderstand that

maybe the FOS on a bad day?? we dont know, but i would kick on with your case and dont give up

OMG! Mine happened exactly the same way and it was with HSBC too!
Wouldn't give me the loan without the PPI. All of the signature spots conveniently marked with 'X's.
Rushed me through everything. Funny really because when I was told to go into branch to sign the loan form I said that I could go in at anytime as I worked right across the street from the HSBC branch but they said the only time they could see me was at 12.30.... rush hour. I got there at 12.30, was shown somewhere to sit and wait for my 'ADVISOR'. I sat opposite a HSBC employee at her desk munching a sandwich and reading the paper. Around 12.50 she calmly got up, went out back and returned 5 mins later with my forms and asked me if I was who I am and then said come over here and sign these forms and when I tried to ask questions she kept rushing through it and saying 'sorry, it's really busy in here today, lunch time rush, can you sign the forms so I can 'help' other customers!!:mad:

worldsnooker147

to be honest ive found all the replies iv had on this site since joining to be really helpful

at the end of the day everyones case has different circumstances so its difficult to judge

like i previously said the adjudicator upheld my case as i found out today but the HSBC have disagreed(suprise suprise!) and they have asked the ombudsman to review his decision

i dont know what grounds he has upheld the case on exactly but i obviously have evidenced a case