Are the banks looking at already declined claims?

Alpine_Star

marshallka wrote: »

This is from the BBC News

Can of worms' After several years of investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, Competition Commission and the FSA, the regulator announced in August a firm crackdown on the way banks have been dealing with complaints about mis-sold PPI policies.
It stipulated, among other things, that banks and other lenders will have to review old complaints about the mis-selling of PPI.

The BBC have got it wrong.

The Root Cause Analysis requirements in the 10/12 Policy Statement only oblige firms to review past sales of non-complainants under certain circumstances.

But as the Money Box piece said, it might be worth resubmitting previously rejected complaints anyway. Certainly Barclays said they would accept them.

marshallka

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The BBC have got it wrong.

The Root Cause Analysis requirements in the 10/12 Policy Statement only oblige firms to review past sales of non-complainants under certain circumstances.

But as the Money Box piece said, it might be worth resubmitting previously rejected complaints anyway. Certainly Barclays said they would accept them.

And then they wonder!!!!

I see, its just non complainants so that would mean the banks having to contact consumers like A and L did. What were the certain circumstances? Is it whereby FOS has found that they have found in favour of the consumer mostly and there seems to be a wider problem with their sales of PPI, cost etc?

Alpine_Star

marshallka wrote: »

And then they wonder!!!!

I see, its just non complainants so that would mean the banks having to contact consumers like A and L did. What were the certain circumstances?

In short the circumstances are if a firm receives a lot of complaints for certain tranches of sales they are obliged to conduct a Root Cause Analysis of them and review all the other sales not complained of. Although the firm must take it upon themselves as to when to conduct an RCA, it will be overseen by the FSA.

smitchy73

marshallka wrote: »

When they declined did they give you a final response and if they did, did they give you the option of taking it to FOS?

Yes they did give me the chance of going to FOS but as many people decided not to because of the rejection already recevied, I know we didn't go to FOS, then after the time had elapsed we were reading more and more of the amount of people who were being rejected but were being found in favour by FOS, for Clydesdale last year it was something like 75%.

Tha main question I am asking now is whether to go back with a new reason for the mis-selling, it wasn't the main point back when we did claim, but it could be every bit as important, even though I still feel their original reasons for declining the claim, when you're looking at the paperwork supplied it does make sense, but somehow when you're in a room looking and needing the money, all you're interested in is 'can I afford the repayment, because I need the money for x/y/z'

smitchy73

I also thought that part of the JR was the fact that so many people were being rejected and that was why the banks were being instructed to look at old cases, I mean if they haven't dealt fairly with the ones who have already claimed, why will they deal fairly with those who were sold at the same time and fairer.

We never used OH's condition to claim before and the final decision from the bank stated that unless we had new evidence they wouldn't look at re-opening the investigation/claim.

smitchy73

marshallka wrote: »

I thought half the argument causing the JR was that firms were arguing about applying new rules to old sales as the FSA wanted? The Banks gave up their fight so why does this not apply to a complaint that was most probably dismissed because it was pre 2005? (assuming it most probably was!!). Surely this could now be reopened IF the consumer complains again to be treated fairly?

This is from the BBC News

Can of worms' After several years of investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, Competition Commission and the FSA, the regulator announced in August a firm crackdown on the way banks have been dealing with complaints about mis-sold PPI policies.
It stipulated, among other things, that banks and other lenders will have to review old complaints about the mis-selling of PPI.


Surely this applies now as they have lost? You have really suprised me Dunstonh with your comment. Am I missing something here or not understanding something?

This is how it reads on the RBS website too

"I have already made a complaint to you about my PPI policy and had it rejected, will you be re-opening my complaint?

No, this does not affect any previous decisions issued by us."

taken from here http://www.rbs.co.uk/global/ppi.ashx


Cant find anything about PPI on Clydesdale's website!

marshallka

smitchy73 wrote: »

I also thought that part of the JR was the fact that so many people were being rejected and that was why the banks were being instructed to look at old cases, I mean if they haven't dealt fairly with the ones who have already claimed, why will they deal fairly with those who were sold at the same time and fairer.

We never used OH's condition to claim before and the final decision from the bank stated that unless we had new evidence they wouldn't look at re-opening the investigation/claim.

Yeah seems to be very well thought out.

If you claimed years ago (when PPI reclaiming was FIRST bought into the limelight you often got to sign a full and final settlement of a few quid with not admitting liabilty. These complaints are not expected to be reopened. They did say they expected firms to treat customers fairly BUT that if a consumer signed full and final then they did not expect firms to reopen them. They got away with lots lthere.

Next we had the media attention and complaints rolled in and "most" were rejected or passed over to some dodgy broker who was never regulated and only "some" went to FOS. FOS could not intervene with lots because of jurisdiction issues and these complaints (although these consumers were most probably also missold had no chance of ever getting anything back and no help from the authorities so the firms got to keep their money!!). Half of these sales were not made by brokers either (it was just that the firm told the complainant that so they had no recourse whatsoever) and FOS would not even step in (or the FSA or the OFT as they just listened to the firm saying "we did not sell it"). They would not even check that a firm was treating the customer fairly either. They just listened to the firm in that they did not sell and that FOS could not intervene. This is where the CMC companies came along to take some more money from the consumer (who were supposedly regulated by the MOJ!!). These firms advertised that they could get money back from pre regulation sales and also lots more besides. Loads signed up to them in desperation.

FOS started upholding vanilla complaints in favour of the consumer (which looked very good to the general public, faith back in the authorities etc). The FSA then stepped in (after knowing of problems with single premium PPI long before) and did these new proposals BUT again failed to address the already rejected complaints (the ones who did not go to FOS which consumers are now out of time for in going to FOS) and although they have said about non complaintants I bet there are not that many left now. Most people would have heard from a CMC cold calling about PPI or the media attention and most would have already missed the boat in one way or another.

There was something whereby they told firms that had rejected a complaint in the past to reopen them but I have not seen many that have posted that they were actually contacted after having their initial complaint rejected. Surely the 185000 complaints that were said to be reopened would have taken some pressure off of FOS but FOS still seem to be getting longer and longer to settle complaints.

The MOJ also allowed (and never stepped in - i wonder why??) all these claims management companies to take on lots of claims (knowing there was a severe problem in that industry, upfront fees and telling people that they could get more than just their PPI back) so people left their complaints about PPI which are most likely time barred or they already complained and had their final response and never submitted to FOS, (they wanted more and perhaps some would say got greedy) and again most of these complaints are still left unsolved and most likely these will not be allowed to be resubmitted. Another batch that cannot complain again and again the banks/finance companies have got to keep their money.

Although the JR went in favour of the FSA (which was supposedly there to protect us) in a way its solved yet another batch of complaints which the consumer complained, got their final response a few months before the review was announced and perhaps gave up thinking (as the media did) that the banks would eventually win so NOT sending to FOS for the two year wait and now missing the boat for FOS also (6 months to complain and remember, already rejected complaints are completely rejected and the JR has nothing to do with).

Banks/finance companies have got away with lots of people had no protection and to fight a case in the courts up against big wig barristers (with a risk that the judge would not uphold in favour of the consumer and cost would be passed onto the consumer who is already in debt) is daunting to most. CMC can not be trusted (lots of BAD media along with solicitors acting for CMC) so we are left ripped off and robbed and our "authorities" allow this to happen still and perhaps always will.

Just can sometimes make you wonder? The only winners are perhaps the non complainants who have never heard of PPI and will no doubt not understand they were perhaps missold anyway. (Not really understanding a single premium PPI and full cost of it and that it incurs interest for the full term of a loan and yet only perhaps covers the first few years). They will probably get away with lots of these too because single premiums are difficult for anyone to understand and especially when settling a loan early. If they knew how much they were actually charged (but lots will never know) they would certainly complain.

And yet ALL firms had a duty to treat us fairly when complaining. I would hardly call rejecting a complaint (when it is clear a consumer would not have purchased a single premium because of the total cost let alone anything else and lets face it most would not) because it was sold prior to "rules" is treating anyone fairly. It is like they are saying "we will rob you blind (we have no conscience at all) because we can and will continue to do so until someone stops us". Surely your bankers/finance advisors should always owe the consumer a duty to act in their best interests??

End of rant. I will now get off my soapbox.

smitchy73

Marshalka, wow and here was me thinking no one would reply to my post. Your last paragraph rings so true, this thread is about a complaint in my oh's name for two loans in her name to the Clydesdale, I have just sent a SAR request to RBS in regards to my own loans, I didn't think there was any PPI on them and decided to have a look through a couple of boxes of paperwork that have been in my son's cupboards from when I lived at my parents, and hadn't been opened in the best part of 10 years, after the JR I decided at the start of this week to have a look and see if I had anything from back then, low and behold I found four credit agreements, and I also found six years of bank statement, I actually had 7 loans all with RBS over a period of about 6 years, they started off with small amounts, then got larger and more frequently getting refinanced, and of the four that I have paperwork for all had PPi amounting to over £4500, there is still the 7th loan which is the largest amount, and will no doubt have PPi on it too, as I mentioned in another thread, all brought on by myself but besides that why when someone is in financial difficulty lump even more money on their loan, I dont ever remember discussing any sort of insurance or payment protection at any of the loans, I was defaulting on payment left right and centre and went to the bank for a discussion and came back out with a new loan in place!

Needless to say nowadays I'm more savvy and even while ppi was still being sold in the past 6 years or so in the odd couple of loans we've had the offer for ppi was rejected, I'm a civil servant now, and even that didn't stop some companies from still trying to sell it to you!

marshallka

smitchy73 wrote: »

Marshalka, wow and here was me thinking no one would reply to my post. Your last paragraph rings so true, this thread is about a complaint in my oh's name for two loans in her name to the Clydesdale, I have just sent a SAR request to RBS in regards to my own loans, I didn't think there was any PPI on them and decided to have a look through a couple of boxes of paperwork that have been in my son's cupboards from when I lived at my parents, and hadn't been opened in the best part of 10 years, after the JR I decided at the start of this week to have a look and see if I had anything from back then, low and behold I found four credit agreements, and I also found six years of bank statement, I actually had 7 loans all with RBS over a period of about 6 years, they started off with small amounts, then got larger and more frequently getting refinanced, and of the four that I have paperwork for all had PPi amounting to over £4500, there is still the 7th loan which is the largest amount, and will no doubt have PPi on it too, as I mentioned in another thread, all brought on by myself but besides that why when someone is in financial difficulty lump even more money on their loan, I dont ever remember discussing any sort of insurance or payment protection at any of the loans, I was defaulting on payment left right and centre and went to the bank for a discussion and came back out with a new loan in place!

Needless to say nowadays I'm more savvy and even while ppi was still being sold in the past 6 years or so in the odd couple of loans we've had the offer for ppi was rejected, I'm a civil servant now, and even that didn't stop some companies from still trying to sell it to you!

You just need to get your complaints in as you have all the paperwork and each time you refinanced some of the old PPI loan (as the PPI was actually a loan to pay the insurer a lump sum) would be included in your opening balance of your next loan. Very crafty.

IMO everyone that was sold a single premium is due their money back regardless just for cost alone. They were never in the interest of an already in debt consumer.

If the banks that do write to non complainants actually word it like it should be

"we sold you a product of PPI (we insisted you bought it actually in most cases or we just added it regardless) back in blah blah blah.... it was a lump sum single premium PPI and it actually another loan you were sold.

This other loan was to pay your insurer an upfront PPI insurance. We knew you could get a standalone insurance if you NEEDED the insurance (we never bothered to ask most of the time) but we added interest for that PPI to whole of your loan but if your loan was for a long time it often ran out before your loan did. You still had interest though to pay for the full term.

We could have offered you something cheaper but as you were already in debt we thought to hell with it, whats another few quid between us. If you cancelled your loan early with us we still added to your settlement figure half your PPI interest that was still due or more (even though you had not used the insurance) and made it look like you were being refunded some of your PPI (the settlement interest is never broken down for you to see just how much your PPI interest was).

We wondered if you minded being sold this product? (I know our sellers of the PPI did not as they received a large commission payment from us for doing so). DId you mind the fact that we knew you were in debt or you would not ask for the loan but we wanted to put you into more needless debt? We thought it was acting in your best interest or at least you did ...We are the ones that you trust with your money, we also look after your savings (if you ever get back on your feet that is). We just wanted to get on our feet for a few years (we knew of the data protection act (but you most probably did not) and if the FSA/GISC left us alone for a bit we could use that against you. We could then say we have no records of conning you years gone by. We have lots of money (look at our profits.. they are profits we made from conning people out of money but it all looks good on paper!) We know of the limitations act too and we most probably knew we could get found out and that with those two acts (we have been doing it for god knows how long) we will most probably only have to redress those sold these single premiums (if they think they have been missold that is!) over the last few years. In fact we are using the interest gained on the sales made previous to do this.

Would you have bought it?

I sincerely hope you win all your cases if you did not want a single premium and had no choice than to take it out. If you did actually want the single premium after knowing it was another loan then I would think to myself that a psych is needed lol. No-one in their right mind would actually WANT a single premium would they?

smitchy73

You're right Marshalka, who in their right mind other than the folk who were blinded by the need to have the money would've signed anything, and of course if thats what youre told by the bank staff at the time you need that money regardless of what it may say on the loan papers you'll sign it, now of course, I'm older and more savvy than that, so we'll just have to wait and see what happens.