Letter from Finacial Ombudsman

katrinalg

Hi All
I am trying to claim my PPL from LloydsTSB, the claim I started in January this year.
First I sent the claim form off to LLoydstsb which they replied to right on the 8 week deadline saying they're looking to my case and if I think they are taking to long to get in touch with the Financial Ombudsman which I did!

I have now had a letter back from the FO stating "that due to court action and press coverage and now they're receiving more the 2,500 ppi cases a week" my complaint will likely take over a year to be resolved-depending on when and how the legal action is concluded!

My question is has anyone else had one of these letters from the FO?
and can anyone suggest what my next step is?
by the way this ppl on a £10,000 loan was nearly £4,000 with the interest so I think I'm entitled to some of it back as I was told I could have the loan without it and they didn't tell me the amount the ppl would be and I'd be paying interest no it! but thats LloydsTSB for you

the_knitting_drummer

katrinalg wrote: »

My question is has anyone else had one of these letters from the FO?

Yes

katrinalg wrote: »

and can anyone suggest what my next step is?

Wait

katrinalg wrote: »

by the way this ppl on a £10,000 loan was nearly £4,000 with the interest so I think I'm entitled to some of it back as I was told I could have the loan without it and they didn't tell me the amount the ppl would be and I'd be paying interest no it! but thats LloydsTSB for you

Lloyds TSB were one of the worst culprits for mis-selling PPI. You WILL get your money back my friend, just need to be patient.:)

marshallka

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]
Perhaps FOS need to sort out the claims within their jurisdiction too sooner. Its such a shame that it takes the FOS 6 to 9 months to tell a consumer/firm that a case is not within their jurisdiction. Surely this needs sorting out too. Perhaps separate teams for claims submitted by the claimant and claims submitted by a third party.

magpiecottage

[TEXT DELETED BY FORUM TEAM]

The_Loan_Ranger wrote: »

I get about ten a day from these stetson wearing outfits, respond to the effect that 'No PPI Exists' 'Account Settled ten years ago' 'Contact the Dealer as the PPi was sold post 14/1/05' - they go away , then write to FOS- FOS come to us, we respond accordingly, and 6 to 9 months later they come back to say 'No claim against you as it's beyond our jurisdiction'.

Interestingly, the MOJ requires CMCs to make clear to their clients that it is the client (i.e. the complainant) that is responsible for what the CMC says. An IFA client of mine recently received a complaint about something it did not appear to have sold and we threatened to sue both the CMC and the complainant if they continued their time wasting. We got a very irate response from the CMC but thus far the case has not gone to FOS.

We do not want to deny legitimate clients the right to complain but making a false statement in order to obtain redress is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006.

The_Loan_Ranger wrote: »

FOS badly need to filter out these cowboy firms who survive by fleeecing customers for fees when they don't have a leg to stand on (they don't have a PPI 80% of the time)

Net result is that those with a genuine claim are stuck in the jam.

Unfortunately, I am not sure FOS can do this as it is an MOJ issue. It would help, though, if firms made their own complaints to the MOJ about fraudulent statements.

marshallka wrote: »

Perhaps FOS need to sort out the claims within their jurisdiction too sooner. Its such a shame that it takes the FOS 6 to 9 months to tell a consumer/firm that a case is not within their jurisdiction. Surely this needs sorting out too.

I agree - one of the problems seems (to me) to emanate from the fact that adjudicators are on piece rate and/or productivity bonuses. A case quickly thrown out as out of jurisdiction will not result in the case becoming "chargeable" so no case fee/bonus for the adjudicator - so they have a conflict of interest.

marshallka wrote: »

Perhaps separate teams for claims submitted by the claimant and claims submitted by a third party.

I don't know that this would help resolve the problem in the short term. However, if they kept stats on which CMCs were submitting frivolous/vexatious/fraudulent complaints and fed back to the MOJ on this then the MOJ would be able to take targetted action and over time the problem would be controlled - so I think the idea has merit although not for the reasons marshallka has suggested it.