Question on my PPI?

di3004

src007 wrote: »

Your guess is as good as anyones.

The rumour is that the judge has made his decision and he's just looking for a date (when the court is free) to make it public. Hopefully we'll find out in the next few weeks.

It may be best to keep an eye out in the news, to see what the judge decides before progressing to the FOS? If the banks (or FSA) appeal, you could then go to the FOS.

If the judges decision draws a line under the matter, the complaint would be taken 'off hold' and bank will have to investigate again.

Hiya

Thanks for posting up.

Hopefully it won't be too long, however its possible there will be an appeal on both sides - depending on the outcome I suppose.

Am checking the media everyday in hope we will have some news on this soon of the outcome of the JR.

Fingers crossed.

Alpine_Star

src007 wrote: »

Dunstonh's comments do make sense and in my experience the banks do usually use the money to reduce arrears even when a 'third party' seems to be involved.

It's probably worth preparing for that eventuality because the FOS take the view that bank are allowed to use a refund to offset debt, as its money thats owed to the business.

Off-set rules only allow for debt to be off-set between accounts that are owned by the same company and this is my point.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Certain conditions must be met before the firm can exercise its right of "set off".

the account from which the firm transfers the money – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held with the same firm.

Alpine_Star

dunstonh wrote: »

evidence is there as that is what companies are doing and the FOS have no problem with it. I just had no problem with you incorrect opinion as that is your choice.

Complete rubbish.

Common_Sense_2

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Off-set rules only allow for debt to be off-set between accounts that are owned by the same company and this is my point.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/40/40_setoff.htm

Certain conditions must be met before the firm can exercise its right of "set off".

the account from which the firm transfers the money – and the account from which the money would otherwise have come – must both be held with the same firm.

so all the company has to do is 'buy back' the debt from the collections company they sold it to, and then they off-set. All the debt sale agreements i've encountered have a clause for this eventuality.

it's a very common practice.

dunstonh

Common_Sense_2 wrote: »

so all the company has to do is 'buy back' the debt from the collections company they sold it to, and then they off-set. All the debt sale agreements i've encountered have a clause for this eventuality.

it's a very common practice.

That matches my experience from my banking days. Whilst the actual commercial arrangements were dealt with at corporate level, the ability to move money received at a later date to collections or back existed back in my banking days.

The whole thing is logical as well. It would be daft to think different.

Borrow £5k, and £1k of PPI and dont repay a penny. It goes to collections firm and you agree to pay back £3500. You then make a mis-sale complaint and £1k redress is agreed. What entitlement could any reasonable person have for deserving to receive that £1k.

Ultimately, the bank has lost money on the debt and is entitled to use money received afterwards to go towards that debt.