Reclaim PPI even when made a claim?

stuartjl

Hi, im sure millions of people have asked this question. I have a barclaycard and made a claim in 2006. But just before i made the claim, i had a job and noticed this on my statement and was going to cancel it. But i then i lost my job and had to claim.

In this instance ppi worked, but just wondering if its worth a try to claim.

Stu

dunstonh

You can still complain and if successful the amount of the claim would be deducted from any redress. However, the fact you claimed does eliminate a number of the complaint reasons. So, what would be your complaint?

stuartjl

dunstonh wrote: »

You can still complain and if successful the amount of the claim would be deducted from any redress. However, the fact you claimed does eliminate a number of the complaint reasons. So, what would be your complaint?

Main reason would be, i was never asked if i wanted it in the first place.

dunstonh

Main reason would be, i was never asked if i wanted it in the first place.

Ok but that is the weakest form of complaint. Especially if you are looking at a long period. People paying something they didnt agree tend to complain within a very short period. If they replied "yes we did ask you" what evidence would you have to show they didnt?

julipatulip

I dont know if this is the right place to ask this but is 3 months a long time to wait for your money after the confirmation letter ?

timmybear

dunstonh wrote: »

You can still complain and if successful the amount of the claim would be deducted from any redress. However, the fact you claimed does eliminate a number of the complaint reasons. So, what would be your complaint?

Dunston, i have to ask though, is this set in concrete? As in, when i saw the question being asked before, it was only speculation that the claimed amount had to be paid back. There seemed to be no certainity about it.

Not that it stops me from thinking it is 'ironic' (and that's being polite) that one can make a claim on an insurance policy and then still fit the criteria for a 'miss sell'. If i went to a shop and bought something, used it once and kept it for a few years, i would have a monumental task in trying to return it for a refund.

In this particular case, I am left wondering if the OP kept the PPI going after the claim was made. If not, would the payments made between then and now be refunded if a miss-sell was proven / bank couldn't be bothered to argue the point, and a refund was given? Cos if it were me, it would seem a strange thing to do to carry on paying something which I resented having put on my account without my permission.

magpiecottage

Clearly the claim shows the OP knew about the policy in 2006.

That is six years ago.

So I think Barclaycard would be within its rights to timebar the complaint.

dunstonh

Dunston, i have to ask though, is this set in concrete? As in, when i saw the question being asked before, it was only speculation that the claimed amount had to be paid back. There seemed to be no certainity about it.

The standard redress method deducts the claim from the redress. The FSA issued guidance on this.

Not that it stops me from thinking it is 'ironic' (and that's being polite) that one can make a claim on an insurance policy and then still fit the criteria for a 'miss sell'. If i went to a shop and bought something, used it once and kept it for a few years, i would have a monumental task in trying to return it for a refund.

I agree. It doesnt sit right with me personally but the FSA said people could. However, as mentioned, a number of the complaint reasons wont work. Barclaycard are not an auto pay out firm. So, they will typically look at holes in the things being said in complaint.

timmybear

dunstonh wrote: »

The standard redress method deducts the claim from the redress. The FSA issued guidance on this.



I agree. It doesnt sit right with me personally but the FSA said people could. However, as mentioned, a number of the complaint reasons wont work. Barclaycard are not an auto pay out firm. So, they will typically look at holes in the things being said in complaint.

So, do you mind if i ask you what your personal opinion of the FSA is? I previously didn't have one (an opinion) but the more I hear about some of the things they have done /allowed in this PPI situation, the more I don't like the sound of them...

dunstonh

timmybear wrote: »

So, do you mind if i ask you what your personal opinion of the FSA is? I previously didn't have one (an opinion) but the more I hear about some of the things they have done /allowed in this PPI situation, the more I don't like the sound of them...

Regulation is needed but the FSA has micromanaged insignificant or minor issues whilst taking its eyes of the ball on major issues. You wouldnt believe the amount of data that an IFA has to provide the FSA each year or have recorded in case they ask for it. Yet they let Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley go haywire on lending. IFAs made up 1.5 per cent of 206,121 cases in 2010/11, around 3092 cases, compared to 2 per cent of 163,012 cases the previous year, around 3260. That is despite dominating the retail advice sector that is responsible for the bulk of distribution in many areas. Yet the FSA spends more time trying to regulate that sector than any other. Banks dominate the complaints and everyone in the industry knows this but the FSA let them get away with blue murder....

...that was until it decided after 25 years of knowing exactly how PPI was sold that virtually overnight it didnt like it being sold that way and not only that, it wanted to backdate 2011 rules to all sales made in past years. It also set a lot of the criteria knowing full well that the banks could not meet that criteria. Therefore allowing opportunistic complaints to be occur. yes the banks did wrong in a number of cases but they did so for over 20 years with the regulator knowing.

The FSA should focus on where the issues are and use common sense. It has done some good things. It has done some poor things. It is arrogant beyond belief (even towards the Treasury Select Committee). For example, recently it was asked for clarification on a new rule which was vague and a number of product providers asked for this clarification. The FSA responded saying that it would not issue clarification is it felt the guidelines were clear. The FSA is like that. It issues vague guidelines or sets principle based regulations in place that can allow different interpretation. If you ask for guidance you are not given it and the first you find out if you were right or wrong was when you or another firm are fined by the FSA for getting it wrong. It then makes a big thing about how much it has fined firms which goes on to harm the reputation of the industry. Whereas had it engaged with the industry and given guidance on things it did or didnt like many of these things would not have happened. It could then have focused on the major issues that nearly bankrupted the country.

magpiecottage

I agree. Furthermore, by applying retrospective rules which firms cannot defend it opens them up to fraudulent complaints.

This is a clear dereliction of its statutory duty to combat financial crime.

It says that it is seeking to prevent consumer detriment but in reality is doing precisely the opposite.

The cost of being forced to pay unwarranted redress will simply be passed on to the consumer.

The cost of forcing good firms to pay levies to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to bail out customers of bad ones that have gone bust will be passed on the consumer.

The cost of forcing remaining firms to pay levies to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to pay unwarranted redress to customers making fraudulent claims about firms that no longer exist will be passed on to the consumer.

The cost of the FSA and FOS being based in Canary Wharf - one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in the world - rather than somewhere cheaper will be passed on to the consumer.

The cost of the expensive hotels etc. of the FSA will be passed on to the consumer.

The cost of the FSA's fine art collection (yes, really!) will be passed on to the consumer.

In addition, you might think that if the FSA thought the high level qualifications it demands of a Financial Adviser were so important it would demand that all its staff and those at FOS took them but it doesn't. Okay not the receptionist but those actually deciding whether the job was done properly ought to be qualified to do it. The situation is equivalent to having a driving examiner who does not have a driving licence.

And the arrogance issue?

The Treasury Select Committee issued a report on the latest round of changes last year and the FSA issued a letter dismissing it out of hand so quickly that it was obvious that the response had been written before the report had been received by it.

No regulator will ever be perfect but both the public and the industry deserve one that is fair and balanced.

Consumers should be protected, as far as is practicable, from unfair treatment by firms. But firms should also be treated from unfair treatment by consumers and in particular from unfounded complaints.

The FSA has singularly failed to do so.