PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

davefairbrother

i think you have given me a link to the same thread ? not sure whats happend here but it was 12:58am when you posted :rotfl:

[Deleted User]

davefairbrother wrote: »

i think you have given me a link to the same thread ? not sure whats happend here but it was 12:58am when you posted :rotfl:

Yes, it's a link to one the many duplicates you posted, so you can easily keep track of the various responses.
Once again you think you can go to FOS when you have no access to them, I'm afraid. The PPI complaint you made was about a sale from 1997 which is pre-regulation (January 2005) and Magnet have rejected it on that basis (though I'm not sure why they threaten legal action).

Unless a PPI complaint is against major banks etc (who had their own regulation before 2005) then the FOS have no jurisdiction. You cannot, therefore, refer your complaint to the Ombudsman.
Your complaint is now over.

dunstonh

Once again you think you can go to FOS when you have no access to them, I'm afraid. The PPI complaint you made was about a sale from 1997 which is pre-regulation (January 2005) and Magnet have rejected it on that basis (though I'm not sure why they threaten legal action).

As the sale was pre-regulation and the firm was not a member of an earlier body, then threats of action against it will often be met with counter action as the only option is court. If the letter contained a number of allegations which are unprovable or made up (many template letters lead to that) then a counter threat of action against the complainant is not unexpected. That wouldn't happen with an FCA regulated complaint (although a firm could decide to withdraw services if they felt the complaint was a bunch of lies - although it only tends to happen with small firms and not the banks).

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

If the letter contained a number of allegations which are unprovable or made up (many template letters lead to that) then a counter threat of action against the complainant is not unexpected.

Obviously, it would be very unlikely to come to such action unless the OP decided to pursue through the courts.

As I said above, the complaint is over because the OP has already exhausted all (realistic) options.

dunstonh

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Obviously, it would be very unlikely to come to such action unless the OP decided to pursue through the courts.

As I said above, the complaint is over because the OP has already exhausted all (realistic) options.

Absolutely. The counter threat of legal action is a shot across the bows in case the OP decides to take that route. Not that they will given that PPI is not a legal issue. Also, a 1997 sale could be statute barred as its over 15 years ago.

batesy2000

Filling in the FOS form to reclaim PPI from an old Lloyd loan it says reason for loan. The loan was taken out in 2004 so its a long time ago. I remember it was to consolidate a loan and maybe 1or 2 credit cards but details of which I can't remember. None of the consolidated loans were Lloyd's but that's all I remember. Will my lack of this detail affect my claim?

[Deleted User]

batesy2000 wrote: »

Will my lack of this detail affect my claim?

The only detail you need to be specific about is the mis-selling aspect. The purpose of the loan is of no real consequence.

Ed-P

I think it is really important that you do try and claim because after reading more and more about it, it seems that banks have just been incredibly sneaky in all of this. Timothy Capper highlighted this when he wrote about the UK PPI claims rising in 2013. Allegedly the Financial Ombudsman had to hire more staff to cope with the influx of complaints. (Sorry I would post to the article but I am not able to post links yet).

After trying to sort this for myself and not getting anywhere, I looked up how to claim for PPI and I saw that the Financial Ombudsman can help on your behalf (Again, sorry I cannot post the full link - financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/PPI.html) which I thought seemed a lot more official than just me waiting around, so I have now made a complaint to them and shall see where this goes!

Good luck everyone else.
Ed

[Deleted User]

Ed-P wrote: »

After trying to sort this for myself and not getting anywhere, I looked up how to claim for PPI and I saw that the Financial Ombudsman can help on your behalf

Any PPI mis-selling complaint goes to the seller of the insurance, NOT the financial Ombudsman. All FOS can do with your complaint is forward it to the seller of your PPI.

Washout

Evening all,


Firstly thanks to this site and the people on this forum my eyes have been fully opened to what the "Financial Services" industry has been up to for the last few decades and I started claiming back PPI back in January.


Anyway I have a few questions, hopefully someone can answer as I can't see it on the main site. Three relate to Barclaycard not upholding my complaint and one for MBNA:


1. When I submitted a request for information under the DPA 1998 to Barclaycard, they responded with a single A4 sheet showing some particulars of the credit card (it was an Egg card I've had since 2003) and PPI was noted in the table of information. In their "final letter" they state they have completed a full investigation, which I fail to see how if all the information they have can fit in a table on one sheet of A4. I wish therefore to submit a complaint to the data commissioner as they have either not investigated fully or have not fully disclosed and wonder how this is done? I think they may have hoisted themselves on their own petard there


2. As I submitted a complaint for the period from the transferral of the credit card from Egg to Barclaycard I did not include mis-selling criteria applicable to the original Egg application. I have however received a vast quantity of paperwork from Canada Square Operations including all statements for the card, but no card agreement showing I had "ticked a box", which is the basis of Barclaycard rejecting my complaint (they did send 2 loan agreements, which are the subject of 2 other complaints). I am therefore combining both Egg and Barclaycard complaints in respect of the credit card and of course submitting this as one complaint to the Ombudsman (Barclaycard in their letter admit potential liability for the entire credit card history and suggest going to the Ombudsman getting round the 8 weeks). The grounds I submitted to Barclaycard will be appended with others related to the Egg application to the effect that they did not properly ascertain my position before selling the PPI and that I did not tick any box, but they are free to prove otherwise (remember that Egg/Canada Square Operations cannot provide the agreement or any paperwork other than computer records related to the credit card).


I am writing a letter to Barclaycard to inform them of this action (and to cancel the policy of course) and the question is; does going to the ombudsman preclude Barclaycard from changing their minds before the Ombudsman make their determination or am I wasting my "breath" with them?


3. What is exactly meant by "legal proceedings" which might preclude the Ombudsman from making a determination? Does this mean court applications or any other legal process for recovery (some recovery methods do not require court processes in the first instance, if you know your Insolvency Act 1986). I am of course not considering proceedings until the Ombudsman makes their decision, merely checking the definition.

4. On an unrelated complaint should I take a single line response to a DPA request from MBNA that no PPI was applied to that card as legitimate? Or should I take the Data Commissioner route with them also?

Apologies for the monster first post, but wanted to check as the sum in question for Barclaycard alone I estimate to be in the order of several 10's of thousands of £'s.