GE Home Finance - MPPI Court ot Not?

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

I have thought about this before.

The handling of a complaint that falls under the jurisdiction of FOS will undoubtedly itself be something FOS can consider - but would normally need you to reject the firm's response of the main complaint to get FOS to investigate it.

However, if the complaint falls outside of FOS jurisdiction then it can have no say in how that complaint is addressed and it therefore follows that it cannot tell the firm to look at it again by any other means. Indeed, the risk you run in such circumstances is that the complaint about the complaint is deemed frivolous or vexatious - and the firm then seeks to charge you for its time in defending it.

So such an approach is not necessarily without risk to the complainant.

Why could a firm say its frivolous or vexatious? Its only asking for what you feel is rightfully yours. I would think that any complaint about the handling of the complaint would be within FOS jurisdiciton?

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/33/your-questions-answered.htm


Under our rules, we don’t charge a firm a case fee if we consider a complaint against them is "frivolous and vexatious" – we simply dismiss the complaint without considering its merits. Nor do we charge a case fee where, when we receive a complaint, we consider it readily apparent that:

• the person complaining is not an "eligible complainant" under our rules; or
• the complaint is outside our jurisdiction; or
• the complaint should be dismissed without consideration of its merits (for example, because the complainant hasn’t suffered financial loss or material inconvenience).

We know that some consumers pursue their complaints with a single-minded tenacity – sometimes in an unfocused and unbalanced manner that may make them seem unreasonable to the firm. But a consumer’s failure to present a coherent and reasoned argument doesn’t automatically mean their case has no merit – or that their complaint is "frivolous and vexatious".
Behind the most complex and voluminous of complaints there may be a simple wrong that has escalated, as both sides have lost sight of the basic facts of the case. These disputes take time and patience to unravel – and first impressions about who is right or wrong can be deceptive. We may ultimately decide that a consumer’s complaint cannot be upheld – but this does not, of itself, mean the complaint can, or should, be dismissed as "frivolous' or 'vexatious".

ianhillwoodville

OK let's just say this is an approach on which we all have differing opinions but - possibly - no definitive position. So perhaps, and magpiecottage your assistance would be much appreciated, when and if I get a response that seems to indicate a failure to investaigate properly I will post a draft response here for comment. I am not suggesting that it will be successful but it does seem an angle worth exploring. Am sure someone somewhere has tried it before but this is an ever changing world and you never know.

On another point I now know who the underwriters are and can always fall back on the you should not have taken business from a non-GISC firm. Not yet seen a draft FOS case on here so might be worth doing one and seeing people's views.

I do deal with complaints with another Ombudsman in my professional life and it is normally quite tough to get them to say soemthing is vexatious and rarely after only one complaint but who knows......

marshallka

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

OK let's just say this is an approach on which we all have differing opinions but - possibly - no definitive position. So perhaps, and magpiecottage your assistance would be much appreciated, when and if I get a response that seems to indicate a failure to investaigate properly I will post a draft response here for comment. I am not suggesting that it will be successful but it does seem an angle worth exploring. Am sure someone somewhere has tried it before but this is an ever changing world and you never know.

On another point I now know who the underwriters are and can always fall back on the you should not have taken business from a non-GISC firm. Not yet seen a draft FOS case on here so might be worth doing one and seeing people's views.

I do deal with complaints with another Ombudsman in my professional life and it is normally quite tough to get them to say soemthing is vexatious and rarely after only one complaint but who knows......

I noted your MPPI or PPI was sold by Purple Loans (your other thread)? If that is correct and GE are just the lender then the complaint is against the ones that sold the PPI? Have you complained to them yet?

ianhillwoodville

Hiya

They are actually one and the same the GE line is for all loans including sold by Purple. They have accepted the complaint is theirs to examine.

marshallka

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

Hiya

They are actually one and the same the GE line is for all loans including sold by Purple. They have accepted the complaint is theirs to examine.

That is good. I hope you get a good response then.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Why could a firm say its frivolous or vexatious? Its only asking for what you feel is rightfully yours.

The point is that the original complaint is outside FOS jurisdiction so trying to argue that the handling of that complaint should itself be inside FOS jurisdiction is frivolous and a waste of the firm's time.

Since FOS has no jurisdiction in such circumstances, it cannot prevent a firm from charging for that dealing with the complaint.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

The point is that the original complaint is outside FOS jurisdiction so trying to argue that the handling of that complaint should itself be inside FOS jurisdiction is frivolous and a waste of the firm's time.

Since FOS has no jurisdiction in such circumstances, it cannot prevent a firm from charging for that dealing with the complaint.

So really and truely by what you are saying then, all complaints pre regulation and not members of GISC at the time of the sale are a waste of time because they will only dismiss the complaint using just about anything they can and then if you try and get it through to FOS you are called "frivolous". The whole system stinks magpiecottage.

Its so wrong and there are so many in this boat whereby HAD the complaint been within FOS jurisdiction it WOULD have been upheld. How can this be fair, right and proper. Where was the protection? This is where I can understand the CMC's (and there must be "some" good ones or solicitors) looking for any loopholes in the laws. Its not frivolous, vexatious or anything sinister. Its just someone looking for justice.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

So really and truely by what you are saying then, all complaints pre regulation and not members of GISC at the time of the sale are a waste of time because they will only dismiss the complaint using just about anything they can and then if you try and get it through to FOS you are called "frivolous".

No it is not frivolous to ask FOS to look at the complaint, only to then attempt to get FOS to look at it again by trying to claim that the handling of the complaint is in FOS jurisdiction when the complaint itself is not - that is nonsensical.

The whole system stinks magpiecottage.

I am telling you what the system is, not whether it is right or wrong.

Its so wrong and there are so many in this boat whereby HAD the complaint been within FOS jurisdiction it WOULD have been upheld. How can this be fair, right and proper. Where was the protection?

It may be frustrating but the answer is that there WAS no protection if they did not subscribe to the voluntary code - but that has always been the case, with anything that has no statutory regulation.

This is where I can understand the CMC's (and there must be "some" good ones or solicitors) looking for any loopholes in the laws. Its not frivolous, vexatious or anything sinister. Its just someone looking for justice.

Don't kid yourself - they are looking to make an easy buck as much as those who missold PPI!

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

No it is not frivolous to ask FOS to look at the complaint, only to then attempt to get FOS to look at it again by trying to claim that the handling of the complaint is in FOS jurisdiction when the complaint itself is not - that is nonsensical

So all those that complained against the broker and got turned away because the broker was not regulated so then tried against the lender and got turned away again because they too were not within jurisdiction BUT then try against the insurer (after being told by FOS to do so often!) ALL for the same complaint, are these classed as frivolous? They are just trying to get into the system?

marshallka

So the evidence at least suggests that there was a problem before January 2005 and a risk of
poor consumer outcomes similar to those in later sales – which is consistent with our stance
in the open letter that the general principles of fair conduct when selling PPI before FSA
regulation had much in common with our standards. And this evidence is clearly important
for the consideration of the potential consumer detriment arising, given that two thirds of
PPI sales were made before January 2005.
The FOS estimates around half of the PPI complaints referred to it concern pre-2005 sales,

and we have no reason to think (and firms have provided none in their responses) that this

is significantly out of line with the proportion of PPI complaints to firms more generally.
Is there a problem with handling complaints about pre-2005 sales?
There is no indication that complaints about these sales have been handled any better
by firms than those about later ones. The FOS estimates that its uphold rate in favour of
consumers for complaints about these sales is no lower than the (high) rate for complaints
about later sales. Of the complaint cases that we have reviewed (as outlined above), a
significant minority concerned pre-2005 sales, and the decisions on these by firms gave us
no reason to depart, in respect of such pre-2005 sales complaints, from our concerns set out
above about firms’ approach to handling PPI sales complaints more generally.
The appropriateness of including pre-2005 sales within our measures
Complaints about pre 2005 PPI sales (or other general insurance sales) are already within our existing scope of our DISP rule on FAIR COMPLAINT HANDLING FOR MOST FIRMS
and our final Handbook provisions on PPI complaint handling are not changing this. So
it is quite consistent and appropriate that such complaints

should fall within the scope

of the final provisions.

However, it remains the case, as stated in CP10/6, that limitations on our powers concerning
most PPI sales made before 14 January 2005 mean we cannot necessarily expect most firms
to consider the position of non-complainants who were sold PPI before that date and may

have been affected by recurrent sales failings on the part of the firm (see next section

Just a little bit of dribble I posted a while back. Don't know if it helps you in your complaint????