Next directory payment protection

Coolco

Hi All
I'm new to this!!
I've just noticed on my next statement I am being charged payment protection from April 1992!:(
Has anyone claimed & been successful ?

What's my next step?

di3004

Coolco wrote: »

Hi All
I'm new to this!!
I've just noticed on my next statement I am being charged payment protection from April 1992!:(
Has anyone claimed & been successful ?

What's my next step?

Hi there & welcome

I am not too sure where you would stand with it being as old as 1992, but maybe if you still have paperwork that will be an help. People have still been successful in reclaiming as from the 90's, definately late 90's anyway. No harm in trying.

You can certainly give it a go if you want to though, I take it this is Credit Card PPI?

If so you pursue the ones who set up your account, send the completed reclaim questionnaire to their head office or complaints dept, and allow 8 weeks, keep copies of everything you send and receive.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-credit-card-insurance#step3

Hope this helps, fingers crossed.

Coolco

Hi
I don't have paperwork but I think I may give it a try anyway as I never take out payment protection knowingly.

Thanks

di3004

Coolco wrote: »

Hi
I don't have paperwork but I think I may give it a try anyway as I never take out payment protection knowingly.

Thanks

Good luck. Please keep us posted.
Cheers.;)

Helluvalassie

I never knowingly take PPI either and had my next cancelled around 18 months ago (sure I cancelled it by phone before that but can't get old enough copies of my account to confirm). They advised that it was an opt out scheme but couldnt supply a copy of the form where it would have been clear to me. I have entered into correspondence with them and they say they were not regulated by the FSA at that time and I was advised on an earlier post here to ask them who their insurer was and begin a claim with them, which I am doing.
Good luck to us!

the_knitting_drummer

Helluvalassie wrote: »

I was advised on an earlier post here to ask them who their insurer was and begin a claim with them, which I am doing.

The phase "it's worth it for the price of a stamp" is thrown around a lot on this website.

Unfortunately, claiming against the underwriter isn't worth it for the price of a half a stamp, or even a free stamp that you find drifting across the pavement on a windy day. It would only be worth it you were paid to accept a stamp from someone, but even then it would be better to use the stamp to write to your auntie, because there is no hope against the underwriter. Zero.

marshallka

the_knitting_drummer wrote: »

The phase "it's worth it for the price of a stamp" is thrown around a lot on this website.

Unfortunately, claiming against the underwriter isn't worth it for the price of a half a stamp, or even a free stamp that you find drifting across the pavement on a windy day. It would only be worth it you were paid to accept a stamp from someone, but even then it would be better to use the stamp to write to your auntie, because there is no hope against the underwriter. Zero.

So why does FOS accept (and even guide you) this direction? If what you are saying is true then it could seem that FOS are hindering complainants from most probably being within the time scales to use the courts if a consumer feels strong enough(not advisable though without proper legal advice).... this is how it is seeming????

FOS are advising people to try another avenue?

magpiecottage

There is one, an, as far as I am currently aware, only two circumstances in which an underwriter (i.e. insurer) can be held at fault.

The first is the obvious one - the policy was missold by the insurer or somebody working for them.

The second will only apply if, at the time of the sale, the insurer subscribed to the General Insurance Standards Council's Code of Practice but the intermediary did not.

This means it will not apply to sales before 2001 (because the code did not exist before then), nor will it apply to sales on or after 14 January 2005 (when the GISC code became defunct).

It also means that if the intermediary did subscribe to the code, you must take it up with that intermediary, not the insurer. If the intermediary no longer exists, you have no further avenue of complaint.

However, the insurer subscribed to the code then if it took business introduced by a firm that did not, it broke the code and, had it complied, the policy would never have existed. That is where its liability arises.

However, the logic is quite convoluted and, I suspect, one that most adjudicators at FOS will find hard to follow, let alone lead.

the_knitting_drummer

marshallka wrote: »

So why does FOS accept (and even guide you) this direction? If what you are saying is true then it could seem that FOS are hindering complainants from most probably being within the time scales to use the courts if a consumer feels strong enough(not advisable though without proper legal advice).... this is how it is seeming????

FOS are advising people to try another avenue?

I personally do think the FOS are hindering some complainants.

For example, someone who took out a FirstPlus loan, but the broker was unregulated. It's sitting in a steaming pile at FOS forever, while the Statute of Limitations creeps by. Surely it would be better to use the courts? The FOS would never suggest or guide anyone down this route for obvious reasons of course.

In many other cases I think the FOS just give people false hope.

The important thing to remember is that FOS are not the great almightly. They are not omnipotent, and they are not on your side.

They are impartial.

marshallka

the_knitting_drummer wrote: »

I personally do think the FOS are hindering some complainants.

For example, someone who took out a FirstPlus loan, but the broker was unregulated. It's sitting in a steaming pile at FOS forever, while the Statute of Limitations creeps by. Surely it would be better to use the courts? The FOS would never suggest or guide anyone down this route for obvious reasons of course.

In many other cases I think the FOS just give people false hope.

The important thing to remember is that FOS are not the great almightly. They are not omnipotent, and they are not on your side.

They are impartial.

I seem to agree with you here. Thankyou for your impartial view too.

amersall

Sorry to highjack this thread.
Marshallka could you please take a look at this and see if you can help, thanx in front!!.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3290054