Query - FOS Jurisdiction

cagey26

I hope someone more educated in Financial matters than me will be able to help me with this query.

Since visiting this forum and submitting various of my own complaints to banks about PPI miss-selling, I have been trying to read around the subject more - the FOS and FSA websites amongst other sources. However, I think that I may just be confusing myself with it all :eek: hence the query that has arisen!

Does the FOS have jurisdiction for a PPI miss-selling complaint if the "point of sale" pre-dates the establishment of the GISC? In my case it would be a Barclaycard which is still active, but was taken out in November 1996 (The PPI was cancelled a few months back, when the statements started referring to it as 'optional').

Any and all help appreciated
Cheers guys
KG

roonaldo

Yes, Barclaycard will be ok, before GISC there was another code which was ABI (association of british insurers) which FOS has jurisdiction of.

cagey26

roonaldo wrote: »

Yes, Barclaycard will be ok, before GISC there was another code which was ABI (association of british insurers) which FOS has jurisdiction of.

Fantastic Thank you so much for responding
Cheers
KG

magpiecottage

roonaldo wrote: »

Yes, Barclaycard will be ok, before GISC there was another code which was ABI (association of british insurers) which FOS has jurisdiction of.

The ABI code will not specifically help because Barclaycard was not a member of the ABI at the time.

However, Barclays WAS a member of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and that included Barclaycard so FOS will have jurisdiction.

However you must complain to Barclaycard first and there is no guarantee that your complaint would be upheld by FOS.

cagey26

magpiecottage wrote: »

The ABI code will not specifically help because Barclaycard was not a member of the ABI at the time.

However, Barclays WAS a member of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme and that included Barclaycard so FOS will have jurisdiction.

However you must complain to Barclaycard first and there is no guarantee that your complaint would be upheld by FOS.

Thank you magpiecottage - I really appreciate you taking the time to reply and for providing the very useful information.

Just to clarify, I have complained to Barclaycard directly and am awaiting an outcome, which is not due until December. I am, however, extremely pessimistic by nature, so I've been trying to read up on the subject for my own interest and to prepare for the next stage should my complaint not be upheld. In my reading I became confused as to whether a 1996 start date would mean that the FOS route was not an option for me, should that need arise - I understand completely that complaints are not guaranteed to be upheld by the FOS but that due consideration would be given to all available evidence from both sides - which would be all that I would want to happen.

Thank you again
KG

magpiecottage

mumofjanda wrote: »

I have just been told by Barclaycard that as I opened my account with them in Oct 1995 it was before Barclays signed up to GISC and therefore is not eligible for referral to FOS.

Is this correct? Thank you!

I would go to FOS anyway, and argue that you are entitled to because Barclaycard, as part of Barclays, was subject to the Banking Ombudsman at the time.

roonaldo

mumofjanda wrote: »

I have had a reply to my complaint to Barclaycard and they are basically saying that as the account was sold to me so long ago they have no details of the amount of PPI that I paid (account was active until closed in 2006) and have offered me £500 as a Goodwill gesture. Is it worth going back to them with the one statement that I have that shows a PPI premium of £28.00 and ask them to reconsider their offer. They have only given me 10 days to return acceptance of their offer and go on to say FOS referral not appropriate! At least now I can tell them that I can take it to FOS!
!

I'm not sure how FOS can help in this instance, it sounds like they have upheld your complaint. If the records are no longer available they cannot refund the PPI, unless you have the statements. If you show them the statement you have, you may get £528.

ALIBOBSY

I would say if they can't produce the info re exact figures then the only figure known they can base things on is your one statement .It is reasonable to base a claim on £28 as an average,at the least it is a good arguement to push the offer up.If they don't like it they can argue the figures.

ali x

roonaldo

I dont think on one statement it is reasonable, the balance could have been nil for months then a balance, resulting in a £28 ppi payment. I would suggest finding some more statements first before going down that route. FOS wouldnt even ask them to pay out years of PPI based on one statement.

mumofjanda

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

I would say if they can't produce the info re exact figures then the only figure known they can base things on is your one statement .It is reasonable to base a claim on £28 as an average,at the least it is a good arguement to push the offer up.If they don't like it they can argue the figures.

ali x

roonaldo wrote: »

I dont think on one statement it is reasonable, the balance could have been nil for months then a balance, resulting in a £28 ppi payment. I would suggest finding some more statements first before going down that route. FOS wouldnt even ask them to pay out years of PPI based on one statement.

Thank you both for taking the time to reply.

I do have a few other statements that show varying balances (card pretty much maxed out the whole time I had it) and payments due that month but unfortunately without the 2nd page (Barclaycard issued a 2 page statement ) which shows the breakdown of charges etc.i will ring Barclaycard with what I've got and see what they say. I would have thought they should have records at least from 2005 to date the account was closed in 2006. I always assumed that Data Protection meant they had to keep these records and produce them if requested!

Like Ali says,worth asking to see if I can get the offer increased.Nothing ventured,nothing gained,I suppose!

Thanks again!:T

magpiecottage

mumofjanda wrote: »

I always assumed that Data Protection meant they had to keep these records and produce them if requested!

This is a common misconception. The Data Protection Act only says they must not keep it longer than they have cause to and that they must keep it up to date and secure.

The FSA rules require documentation from the point of sale to be held for at least six years but that has long since expired for anything dating back to the 1990s (Although most firms would now keep it indefinitely).