BOS response - Section 78 does not apply

MoneyMagic01273

And you had some good news of your own today I hear - congratulations!:beer: :T

dunstonh

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.

What about the fact that the FOS charge £500 (raising to £850) even if there is not a complaint to answer?

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...

They are not the ones that caused the issue but they are caught up paying £500-£850 because of fraudulent complaints.

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.

Your inability to answer a simple question isnt helping. How do you expect someone to take your complaint seriously if you dont have a reason for complaining?

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

And you had some good news of your own today I hear - congratulations!:beer: :T

Yes, and I wasn't opportunistic!:p

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

They are not the ones that caused the issue but they are caught up paying £500-£850 because of fraudulent complaints.

But what percentage of these "fraudulent" complaints are actually being paid for by these small firms? I do understand your concern, especially if the people in question sold these policies in good faith believing them to be of use to their customers.

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yes, and I wasn't opportunistic!:p

Yes - but like many others you also weren't at all sure of your situation and whether it had been mis-sold to you or not, at first.

I'm glad the people of MSE came to your aid and helped you get the result you did. And I wholly agree your situation did seem pretty clear cut in the end.

Well done - no bad ju-ju for you

MoneyMagic01273

dunstonh wrote: »

What about the fact that the FOS charge £500 (raising to £850) even if there is not a complaint to answer?



They are not the ones that caused the issue but they are caught up paying £500-£850 because of fraudulent complaints.



Your inability to answer a simple question isnt helping. How do you expect someone to take your complaint seriously if you dont have a reason for complaining?

2 of the above points seem better directed at the ombudsman than anyone here.

Your final point is again asking a question the OP doesn't have to answer to you. He's had the advice on the process he was after.

Though he did in fact provide a response earlier. It involved a nasty man at the bank that made him do it, I think. I believe he was serious....

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

Yes - but like many others you also weren't at all sure of your situation and whether it had been mis-sold to you or not, at first.

Actually, I did know I had been ripped off (mis-sold;)) right from the off.
The only thing I wasn't sure about was whether my complaint would be upheld by the Bank!:p

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

Though he did in fact provide a response earlier. It involved a nasty man at the bank that made him do it, I think. I believe he was serious....

I still believe he'd win redress with that complaint!

dunstonh

Your final point is again asking a question the OP doesn't have to answer to you. He's had the advice on the process he was after.

Though he did in fact provide a response earlier. It involved a nasty man at the bank that made him do it, I think. I believe he was serious....

It is a point that needs to be answered and it hasnt been answered sensibly (I assumed the reasons given were joke reasons as they couldnt possibly be serious). If the PPI was say from Halifax, then it it wouldnt matter what reasons as they are auto paying out. But if it is from that it isnt auto paying out, like Nationwide, Santander etc then you do need a valid reason for complaint.

MoneyMagic01273

dunstonh wrote: »

It is a point that needs to be answered and it hasnt been answered sensibly (I assumed the reasons given were joke reasons as they couldnt possibly be serious). If the PPI was say from Halifax, then it it wouldnt matter what reasons as they are auto paying out. But if it is from that it isnt auto paying out, like Nationwide, Santander etc then you do need a valid reason for complaint.

The OP didn't ask for our opinion on the reasons he is going to state for the complaint.

Yes he does need to answer that sensibly - for himself and the bank/FOS. Not to you, on this thread... unless of course, he wants to.

If he needs advice on that he can ask for that specifically - or google "PPI complaint reasons most likely to be upheld" if he gets stuck

Also, I believe you are incorrect in your initial assesment of the OPs request, in that understanding the specific details of the PPI policy you were sold can for some people be key to proving that a policy was unsuitable for them and can be evidence of mis-selling in some cases. In fact I believe a lot of successful PPI claims hinge on the unsuitability of the product T&Cs/exclusions vs. an individuals specific circumstances at the time it was sold to them.

Investigating that for himself if perfectly acceptable if he can obtain the policy documents.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

I believe you are incorrect in your initial assesment of the OPs request, in that understanding the specific details of the PPI policy you were sold can for some people be key to proving that a policy was unsuitable for them and can be evidence of mis-selling in some cases. In fact I believe a lot of successful PPI claims hinge on the unsuitability of the product T&Cs/exclusions vs. an individuals specific circumstances at the time it was sold to them.

Investigating that for himself if perfectly acceptable if he can obtain the policy documents.

Actually, Dunston's original assessment was quite correct. The MSE advice does make it seem like asking for the terms and conditions are a necessary part of the complaint process. However, the reality is that this is a suggestion to save on the £10 it costs to do a full SAR and causes a lot of upset and confusion when lenders write back with a refusal to comply for closed accounts.
The OP needs no T&Cs (and won't be getting them anyhow) what he needs are valid reasons to complain that he was mis-sold. It's just unfortunate that Dunston has become so used to answering similar questions again and again he came across as uncaring and unhelpful.