Share your stories on PPI Reclaiming claims handlers

Kerrymac

Hey Moneyineptitude -

Well, in summary -

I took out insurance, mis-sold to me by a company who was wound up by the FSA for mis-selling and other corruption. Because my product would under no circumstance benefit me - it was insurance that would only benefit the mortgage company - yet it would cost me £12000 over 25 years - I think that clearly demonstrates, I was told I had to take it out.

The FSCS has said, even though I have all the original documents, including one with the actual seller-bloke's name on it, I can't prove I was told I had to take it out. They want that in writing, they won't accept me just telling them what happened and how the product was useless to me and presenting them with all the documentation given to me at the time.

In dealing with them - Deloitte (who they're still using) claimed I didn't send all the documents (I got 2 people to check at the time that I did). When I sent the same ones again, saying that I had witnesses and if there was any problem I'd need all the documentation held on me by them, the FSA and the FSCS for presentation to my lawyer - guess what - they suddenly said that not only did they now have everything, but it looked like I was going to get compensation.

Months passed, every time I'd phone, someone would phone me back and say something like "you'll probably get compensation yeah" etc.

Then the final FSCS letter said - you don't have sufficient evidence. Then on the phone, the FSCS elaborated and said I need the mis-selling in writing. I'm just wondering if that's true - because I imagine that would be quite a rare thing to have, given the nature of mis-selling.

[Deleted User]

Kerrymac wrote: »

the final FSCS letter said - you don't have sufficient evidence. Then on the phone, the FSCS elaborated and said I need the mis-selling in writing. I'm just wondering if that's true - because I imagine that would be quite a rare thing to have, given the nature of mis-selling.

Unfortunately, you provided a "hearsay" complaint for which no one could realistically provide proof. What "witnesses" did you have to the mis-selling? I can't imagine they would have been anyone independent. I've no idea why you've made a video about it as your complaint has failed and is now at an end.

What were the "suspicious obstacles" you encountered?

Kerrymac

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Unfortunately, you provided a "hearsay" complaint for which no one could realistically provide proof. What "witnesses" did you have to the mis-selling? I can't imagine they would have been anyone independent. I've no idea why you've made a video about it as your complaint has failed and is now at an end.

What were the "suspicious obstacles" you encountered?

I was sold a product that could in no circumstance benefit me, only the bank - that in itself is mis-selling.

The complaint is not at an end - there is an appeals process and after that I can take legal action.

The suspicious obstacles include Deloitte lying about missing documents and backdating letters they sent me to ten days prior to the postmark on the envelope and saying they may not be able to handle any reponses from me if I don't reply within ten days.

Cheers.

[Deleted User]

Kerrymac wrote: »

The complaint is not at an end - there is an appeals process and after that I can take legal action.

Good luck with that.
I'm sorry but with that complaint reason I think you will need it. No court will accept you "just telling them what happened and how the product was useless". You'll need hard and fast evidence and your "witnesses" would need to be completely independent.

dunstonh

I was sold a product that could in no circumstance benefit me, only the bank - that in itself is mis-selling.

If that was the case then it would be an easy upheld decision. Factual information like not eligible for cover (which is what you suggest the case is for you) are strong complaints. The weak ones are where you are eligible for cover, it would have paid out and the complaint is an unprovable allegation (which may have happened but may not have done either due to poor recollection or downright lies)

The complaint is not at an end - there is an appeals process and after that I can take legal action.

Legal options have not been that successful. Many cases have failed and some are on hold pending test cases, the first of which was lost.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

Factual information like not eligible for cover (which is what you suggest the case is for you) are strong complaints.

OP has stated that the complaint centred around being told it was compulsory to take the insurance.

Kerrymac

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

OP has stated that the complaint centred around being told it was compulsory to take the insurance.

Yep, that's the main reason - but clearly the other reason is that the product was unsuitable for me. I only took it out because they said I had to.

[Deleted User]

Kerrymac wrote: »

I only took it out because they said I had to.

Therein lies your problem, you cannot prove that this was the case.

Why didn't you focus on the insurance not being suitable? Please detail how the insurance could never benefit you. Did you have a pre-existing medical condition which precluded you from claiming on the insurance? Were you self employed and the insurance not cover you for that?

Hedgehog135

I used a claim company U claim 4 me and feel a complete idiot they took my money over £11000 for doing nothing. That was two years ago.

Now they are trying to take more which I am fighting. First plus didn't lower my loan amount two years ago so for that time I have been over paying for about £200 a month. They are now repaying me these over payments. The company think that I owe them over £1000 of my over payments. I don't think they have a claim over any of it. What do you think?

Just wish I had never signed up I could have easily done it myself and don't really know why I didn't

magpiecottage

If you are saying they are charging you for a percentage of future payments never incurred then I would complain to them that this was not made clear at outset and therefore they are in breach of Client Specific Rules 11a, 11g and 14 of the Conduct of Authorised Persons Rules 2007.

Tell them you expect charges to be waived or you will refer the matter to the Ministry of Justice.