PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

Nasqueron

incesticde wrote: »

Hi Folks,

Need some help... and didn't want to start a new thread

About four ago I attempted to claim PPI from three companies (MBNA, RBOS, Coop). I was rejected by MBNA but Coop and RBOS resulted in wins and a payout. This was all done by myself and no claims companies were involved.

About a two month ago my union offered a free ppi review which I agreed to, they have now said they have found me new ppi money and have sent me a contract to sign which charges a whopping 25% plus of course VAT.

Now obviously I will be rejecting the contract (and telling them so in writing) but I am wondering if
(a) has anything has changed re what you can claim from ppi since I last claimed myself which has resulted in this company claiming they have found extra ppi?

I'm thinking Plevin and things like that (I seem to remember that there was a recent-ish discussion about if you were hit with charges for overdrawn fees and if you didn't have ppi you wouldn't have had those overdrawn charges you would get the od charges back?).

When I claimed I used the standard templates on MSE at that time (say five years ago)

(b) I'm assuming that I can of start the ball rolling on a new claim for all three?

(c) is there anything I need to above a written signed "I now no longer wish to use your services" letter to the claim agency? So far all I have agreed to is a free no obligation/commitment investigation

Hope this makes sense to you guys, if you need any more clarification please let me know

Thanks for all your help

a) No nothing has changed, it's quite possible the "review" simply looked at your financial records and they have identified the ones you have already complained about or they found products you had with other lenders. There is no new pot of money from the ones you have complained about. If the lender has identified a failing in calculations for a refund they should write and let you know (usually they send a cheque)

Plevin is nothing to do with this, it's to do with rejected complaints where the commission on the sale was over 50%, it would only potentially apply on the MBNA one as you were paid out on the other two ad even then it would have to be a large commission and you only get back the money charged over 50%. Plevin does not mean a new payout for successful complaints

PPI was such a small amount (typically around 70p per £100 of debt) that the PPI charge alone would very rarely be the reason you were going into an overdraft and getting charges, the issue with PPI was miss-sale, not your spending - if you were so close to the line every month that is not the fault of the company providing PPI

b) No you can't. You complained, you were given a response and the refund/rejection. The cases are now time barred. You can write and ask MBNA if Plevin applies and write and ask Co-Op and RBOS if there are any errors in calculations but you cannot instigate a new complaint, they will simply time bar it

c) Depends what you signed with the firm

To be honest I'd be trying to establish if they have actually found another provider or if they are simply making a mistake and didn't realise you had already complained

Baggs

IFAs did not become regulated for insurance until January 2005. As this was before then, the IFA does not have to consider the complaint and you do not have access to the FOS.

What was the policy that you had if it wasnt ASU?

Thank you for your response to my query.
You raise a very good question. as i was not told about this policy, i do not know what the policy was exactly. is ASU not another name for PPI as they both serve to help you maintain your payments. i did not need this as i said i had a great package with my employer. Also who or what is FOS.

suzilouise

I always said no to PPI when asked as my work covered sickness up to 6-12 months, therefore I never tried to reclaim PPI. As the deadline has been announced, I thought I would try on the off chance. It seems that at least one bank added it anyway even though I said no. I have just received a cheque for £3,200 for an Egg loan. Using resolver I am now putting through 7 enquiries for store cards, loans, credit cards and car finance to see if any other financial company added it against my wishes.

Art.Lup

I have been trying to reclaim PPI from Volkswagon Financial Services. They directed my claim to the dealership that dealt with me.

They have declined my claim on the grounds that it is greater than 6 years ago and that I am claiming "thre years after I realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem" quoting FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 (????).

My claim is based on the fact the the PPI provided me with sickness cover and no assessment was made on what my needs were at the time the PPI was "talen out" (I was already maximally covered).

Do I go back to them (although they have said this is their final response) or will I get anywhere with the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance

Nasqueron

Baggs wrote: »

Thank you for your response to my query.
You raise a very good question. as i was not told about this policy, i do not know what the policy was exactly. is ASU not another name for PPI as they both serve to help you maintain your payments. i did not need this as i said i had a great package with my employer. Also who or what is FOS.

You will have been told about the policy and been provided with various documents explaining it. ASU = Accident, Sickness and Unemployment, effectively the same as PPI

On a mortgage even civil servants with 6 months full 6 months half pay get rejected for MPPI complaints because a mortgage is a massive debt that risks your house being taken away if you cannot pay it, nobody provides benefits if you are off sick that would pay all your bills for a sustained period (say 18 months for a severe cancer diagnosis)

The FOS is the ombudsman who would look at rejected complaints but as your sale was pre-2005 and the IFA would not have been covered by regulation that cannot look at it

Nasqueron

suzilouise wrote: »

I always said no to PPI when asked as my work covered sickness up to 6-12 months, therefore I never tried to reclaim PPI. As the deadline has been announced, I thought I would try on the off chance. It seems that at least one bank added it anyway even though I said no. I have just received a cheque for £3,200 for an Egg loan. Using resolver I am now putting through 7 enquiries for store cards, loans, credit cards and car finance to see if any other financial company added it against my wishes.

Nobody added it without your wishes, you agreed to it at the time. If you had it added without your consent you would have complained after the first payment went out.

Good luck with your other complaints

dunstonh

They have declined my claim on the grounds that it is greater than 6 years ago and that I am claiming "thre years after I realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem" quoting FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 (????).

There is a 3 year and 6 year rule that can be applied in many cases but it needs something to trigger the 3 year rule for it to be applied correctly.

What have they quoted in their response as triggering the three year rule?

My claim is based on the fact the the PPI provided me with sickness cover and no assessment was made on what my needs were at the time the PPI was "talen out" (I was already maximally covered).

Do I go back to them (although they have said this is their final response) or will I get anywhere with the Ombudsman?

1 - your complaint hasnt been looked at. They have tried to timebar it
2 - they are not required to carry out an assessment on your needs. So, that particular point will fail (doesnt mean there are no other areas it could succeed in)

If the FOS agreed that the timebar has been applied correctly, then they will not be allowed to look at your complaint. So, the focus at the moment is whether they are applying the timebar correctly or not. hence my question on what they have stated as the trigger for the 3 year clock (and I repeat that they must be a specific trigger - firms that apply it correctly state what the trigger was in their complaint responses).

Nasqueron

Art.Lup wrote: »

I have been trying to reclaim PPI from Volkswagon Financial Services. They directed my claim to the dealership that dealt with me.

That is technically correct, the dealer sold it so they have liability though if it was a VW dealer you could still complain to VW if the dealer had ceased trading

Art.Lup wrote: »

They have declined my claim on the grounds that it is greater than 6 years ago and that I am claiming "thre years after I realised (or should have realised) that there was a problem" quoting FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 (????).

The financial world has rules, 6 years from taking out the product or 3 years from knowing you had reason to complain, whichever is longer. If the firm notified you more than 3 years ago, or you cancelled it, they can time bar it. You could take this to the FOS who will check if they have done it correctly, it would depend what proof the dealership have that this time-bar is valid. If it is valid, your complaint it over.

Art.Lup wrote: »

My claim is based on the fact the the PPI provided me with sickness cover and no assessment was made on what my needs were at the time the PPI was "talen out" (I was already maximally covered).

Do I go back to them (although they have said this is their final response) or will I get anywhere with the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance

That complaint is irrelevant, PPI was not an advised sale so doesn't have to look into things like that. I am not sure what "maximally covered" is meant to be, if you had say civil service level benefits then you may win on that for a car loan as it's a shorter term debt without serious issues if you default.

If they have time barred it all you can do is ask the FOS to check this is valid. If it is, the complaint is over

Art.Lup

dunstonh wrote: »

If the FOS agreed that the timebar has been applied correctly, then they will not be allowed to look at your complaint. So, the focus at the moment is whether they are applying the timebar correctly or not. hence my question on what they have stated as the trigger for the 3 year clock (and I repeat that they must be a specific trigger - firms that apply it correctly state what the trigger was in their complaint responses).

Dunstonh many thanks for your response. This is their justification.

1. That they have on record a document I have signed in June 2006 that clearly states that an element of the credit contains PPI
2. That there has been extensive publicity of PPI mis-selling paticularly in 2010 and 2011 that by June 2011 I was or should have been aware that I had potential cause for complaint

Interestingly, their letter is dated "Tuesday 20th January, 2015" (I used Resolver to initiate my claim on 2.3.17).

dunstonh

Go straight to the ombudsman. That reason for the timebar will not work. They cannot use the publicity element. It is not a specific trigger and it fails the criteria to trigger the timebar clock ticking.

I would expect the FOS to agree