BOS response - Section 78 does not apply

[Deleted User]

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

That for me like moneyineptitude says comes across a bit as siding with the banks,

Hold on, I didn't ever post that opinion!:D
Don't you mean MoneyMagic01273???:p

dunstonh

I do feek his answers come across from his perspective as someone who works within the financial sector

I do try and remain objective but also balanced. I am not one for going with compensation culture. I could have done a year ago but I didnt as I stuck with my morals. It cost me but I feel better for it. If people still decide to complain fraudulently then that is their choice. They can live with their morals but dont expect sympathy when karma causes them to suffer something "unfair".

The PPI issue with loans was a complete and utter nightmare. You will see that with most of these, I tell people to complain. With credit cards, its not as obvious and some I tell complain, some dont. With MPPI, which is where I spend most of my time responding, I tend to take a firmer approach but that also matches what is happening with firms. Loan PPI is a doddle to complain about. Credit card a little less so but still fairly easy. MPPI doesnt have the same sorts of issues in most cases (it is usually set up correctly as monthly payment, it is actually the only PPI that can be worth having and many of the opportunistic complaints on these affect small local firms who have done no wrong but end up with bills that for some advisers can wipe out a quarter to half their monthly income).

As I spend most of my time responding on MPPI threads, I suppose it can give the impression you see. I wouldnt have posted on this thread had it not been for the common error of using S78 when it doesnt apply. Remember that even the FSA have stated that MPPI is not as effected as loan and credit card and it's own research found issues but nothing like the scale of loan/credit card (single premium being the key MPPI failure).


Without going off topic any more...... The question still stands. Why does the OP need the agreement to make the complaint? The provider doesnt need it. The regulator doesnt need it. There is no requirement to have it to make the complaint. So, why ask for it and delay?

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Put this on your Ombudsman Questionnaire and you are bound to win redress!:D

lol... its funny 'coz it's true.

My responses to dunstonh are largely tongue-in-cheek - but at the same time I am also making what I believe to be a valid point about the whole PPI issue.

The "mis-selling" situation surrounding this product is confusing and ambiguous for a large number of people and knowing whether you were actually mis-sold it (or not) is not actually as clear cut as "I believe I was" or "I believe I wasn't". "I don't really know" is also a completely valid stance on it, as mis-selling something is just as much about the banks following correct procedures and standards of conduct at the time as it is about how the consumer feels about the transaction with hindsight.

I may have taken out a PPI product some time ago (rightly or wrongly) and be unsure as to whether the bank followed the correct procedure in recommending it or selling it to me. I may also feel largely indifferent about it now - especially if it was some time ago - but that in and of itself doesn't automatically mean I wasn't mis-sold it or that I don't have a potential claim.

So, what do I do - do I right a nicely worded letter along the lines of "Dear Mr Banker - could you advise me if you mis-sold me PPI with my loan x years ago?" Well, yes I could but forgive me if I'm dubious about the type of response I get.

So my other alternative is to follow along with the "advertised process" that thousands of others appear to be following with some success, by all accounts. The media coverage and all those adverts on TV suggest the the only process I can follow is to make a claim asserting I was mis-sold PPI and then I let the bank follow one of the 3 scenarios dunstonh kindly outlined above....with the net affect that the onus is on them to tell me (or prove to me) that they didn't. And if they want to be lazy about it and just pay me off, then cheers to that

What I am saying is the PPI claim process has been designed and communicated strongly to consumers in this way - and I don't believe that is the consumer's fault at all. The banks and institutions selling the product and the ombudsman are at fault for creating an issue and designing a resolution process which requires that anyone seeking redress or even just clarification has to form that into a definitive "complaint" in order to have their specific situation and rights clarified.

The poster already explained *why* the asked for the agreement. Because the advice they recieved on a prominent website said they should. Supporting my point that the overall PPI situation is confusing and ambiguous for many everyday folk and even an online resource (that we all know and love) maybe get it wrong too.

It is no wonder people end up making a claim in the event they are not sure of their specific circumstance. Like I said, I'd chance it too.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

I believe it is justified for someone to make an equiry - phrased as a "complaint" if that is what the process requires - to have the bank determine that, if they so choose.

It's not these "enquiries" which have caused the enormous backlog of complaints referred to the Ombudsman, though. A large proportion of those are from Claims Management Companies who sign up even the most spurious complainant and submit for them generic reasons (which often don't apply). These are then forwarded to the Ombudsman simply because it is thought that they are more likely to uphold.
The Banks are also receiving complaints from people who didn't even have PPI (or even a loan) with that Bank.
Such free-for-alls only benefit the CMCs and hold up genuine financial complaints, even those which are not PPI related.

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's not these "enquiries" which have caused the enormous backlog of complaints referred to the Ombudsman, though. A large proportion of those are from Claims Management Companies who sign up even the most spurious complainant and submit for them generic reasons (which often don't apply). These are then forwarded to the Ombudsman simply because it is thought that they are more likely to uphold. .

But whether we like the claim companies or not and whether we think the reasons they attach are generic or not - if the ombudsman upholds a complaint, so be it. Its for them to decide - not you or me. If the reject it then again, so be it.

Backlogs don't bother me either. I sympathise with people who are waiting for ages for an outcome but thats the process they designed.... with all it flaws and inefficiencies.

The Banks are also receiving complaints from people who didn't even have PPI (or even a loan) with that Bank.
Such free-for-alls only benefit the CMCs and hold up genuine financial complaints, even those which are not PPI related.

And thats what I would call "fraud". Which I am of course, not supportive of at all.

Mr_Baldman

dunstonh wrote: »

Without going off topic any more...... The question still stands. Why does the OP need the agreement to make the complaint? The provider doesnt need it. The regulator doesnt need it. There is no requirement to have it to make the complaint. So, why ask for it and delay?

I came here for sound advice, to try and understand where i stand, and to find out if i have been misled in the past with something that i have paid for out of my own pocket.

Your pedantry is not helping whatsoever.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

whether we think the reasons they attach are generic or not - if the ombudsman upholds a complaint, so be it.

That's the point, they aren't upholding nearly so many as they were, precisely because the nature of many of them is opportunistic rather than genuine.

[Deleted User]

Mr_Baldman wrote: »

I came here for sound advice, to try and understand where i stand, and to find out if i have been misled in the past with something that i have paid for out of my own pocket.

You need to write a Subject Access Request (SAR) letter which should provide you with all the information you require (even for closed accounts) for at least the last six years (and possibly more):

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1475553

If the SAR returns information that shows you had payment protection insurance, you'll then have to provide the Bank with a complaint that details reasons why you think it was mis-sold:
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-credit-card-insurance

Remember that it's not just the fact of having PPI that can be complained about (and nor can you simply say "because the nasty man at the bank made me do it":D), it's whether the Lender sold it to you in a manner that didn't allow you to make an informed decision about your purchase.

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That's the point, they aren't upholding nearly so many as they were, precisely because the nature of many of them is opportunistic rather than genuine.

But however unfortunate the delays are that in itself also means the process is working. Valid claims = upheld. Invalid Ones = not upheld (in increasing numbers)

dunstonh can sleep at night knowing that those little rascals aren't getting any money!

Seriously though, I do spare a thought for those small business that dunstonh mentioned that are feeling the burden of the claim process.





.....But then I think about the money everyone made selling PPI in the first place and then that thought slips away...

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

Seriously though, I do spare a thought for those small business that dunstonh mentioned that are feeling the burden of the claim process......But then I think about the money everyone made selling PPI in the first place and then that thought slips away...

I have to agree with that sentiment to a degree...