FOS and the 6 month rule.

Blinkin73

I havent said that I would definitely win. I think that paying for a policy that pays out in the event of my death when I have no dependents is a strong claim though, one that Halifax wouldnt even try to defend.

[Deleted User]

Blinkin73 wrote: »

I havent said that I would definitely win.

If you don't believe that, then why do you think they should re-open your case?

Cornwaller1

Don't know whether this is of any help.I made a claim to my bank and was rejected.I thought I would go to the FOS but allowed time to slip by and went past the deadline.Probably a year later following advice off this site.I put in a totally new claim,starting from scratch again.I am now soon to receive a settlement.(also done in a lot shorter time!)

Blinkin73

When I wrote to Halifax again in March this I didnt reallise that in essence I was expecting them to reopen the case , having forgotten/not appreciated (whatever you want to call it)sometime in Jan/feb 2010 that I had six months to write to FOS. It wasnt until feb this year that I managed to change job and starting feeling more myself and having more energy to tackle stuff. Whilst having a massive clearout I found all the paperwork in relation to my complaint in 2009 and looked up this site again to see if Halifax had been found guilty of misselling. They had. I thought they might reconsider my case in light of this (silly I know). I also read on this site about how having no dependants could be an important issue. So I thought I would write to them about this.

It was not until I recieved their response on 17th June that I looked back at the final decision. This informs me that though I pay one (extortionate) monthly payment of £83 pounds for the total mortage protection package..it is in fact three seperate policies. Consequently I strongly feel that in relation to the payment I make for benefits in the event of my untimely death, my recently advising of the fact that I have no dependants is new information and should be taken into consideration.

This morning was the first time I looked into the 6 month rule and this afternoon, when Dunstonh commented that if the information I provided in March was significant it could cause the case to be reopened, that I became aware that this might be possible. Thats why I am asking for further clarification.

I strongly believe that the policy is of little use to me given the benefits I have through my job and the certain job security that I have. I havent even explained to you all that two years after the policy started I experienced a health problem which indicates that I have MS and a MRI scan supported this. I have no diagnosis because you need to have evidence of multiple attacks but luckily this has not occured and given the time that has elapsed since the attack its most likely that if i go on to develop MS it will be very mild. When I remortgaged in 2005 my MPPI was amended to take account of a loan I also had with Halifax but no furhter health questions were asked. Therefore I wasnt even sure if the policy would cover me. Halifax denied any such amendment in 2009 when I complained. If I should fall ill I dont think they will pay out. But I appreciate that I did not write to FOS within the timescales and that my reasons for not doing so will not be accepted

I havent yet accepted that the information I provided in March is not significant and that my case should not be reopened and re examined in light of this.

I have enough court experience to know that nothing is certain even when you think you have a rock solid case. I imagine its the same in this situation.

Are you deliberately trying to play devils advocate moneyineptitude as no matter what I reply I seem to in the wrong. : )

Thanks Cornwaller1 for your positive and encouraging reply. I wonder if your bank accidently treated your most recent complaint as a new claim. Mine didnt but I am asking for advise as to how to go about this especially given the new information I have provided to Halifax.

[Deleted User]

Blinkin73 wrote: »

Are you deliberately trying to play devils advocate moneyineptitude as no matter what I reply I seem to in the wrong. : )

The general consensus I see from this thread is that you are wrong. I'll leave others to debate it with you, though, you're just repeating yourself over and over.

Blinkin73

Moneyineptitude,

I cant see how I can be wrong when I am only asking some questions?

I notice that many of the replies to my thread come from people in the financial industry and that no one has given any information regarding what constitutes "significant new information".

I dont mean to repoeat myself over and over, only to answer the questions that have been put to me.

As you can see Cornwaller 1 managed to do it, without significant new information so it can be done. You dont necessarily only get one bite at the cherry.

I dont think there is anything wrong in asking for views and replying to questions. Isn't that what this site is about? As you can see from my replies I accept that I havent referred to FOS in the 6 months and that my reasons for doing so may not be accepted. I'm not considering referring to FOS in respect of the final decision given to me at the end of November 2009 - 2.5 years ago.

Maybe I have not been clear about the advice I am after. Could the new information that I supplied in march be considered significant? If so is there perhaps some mileage in writing to Halifax putting forward such an arguement as they have not acknowledged that my new complaint is based on different grounds. If they reject this information as significant, could that be referred to FOS?


Dont forget that at the end of the day, I believe that there is a very strong liklihood that the policy was missold to me. Many of the points that I have raised are the reasons why people have been refunded their premiums

Regards

G

[Deleted User]

You can only complain once. You've long since missed your chance and it's becoming ludicrous for you to detail the same points over and over in long posts which will succeed in getting you precisely nowhere.

This really is my last post on the subject.

Blinkin73

Looking at a number of banking sites in relation to ppi misselling complaints and new information

Barclays website under frequently asked questions states
"
Q. I have received my response letter which says that my complaint has been rejected. I don’t agree with the outcome so what can I do now?
If you are unhappy with the outcome of your complaint, you can ask the Financial Ombudsman Service to review it. You have six months from the date of your response letter to do so. We will have enclosed a copy of a leaflet regarding the FOS with your response letter, which includes details of how to contact them. We will co-operate fully with the Financial Ombudsman Service if you choose to pursue your complaint with them.
We would only review a case again if you feel that you have new or additional information regarding your complaint which you did not include in your original correspondence.



Blackhorse webiste under frequently asked questions states

Will you be reopening my complaint which was originally not upheld?

We are not reopening complaints that have already been closed. When responding to complaints, we always tell customers that they have 6 months to raise any concerns over our decision to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). If you have new or different concerns, then we’ll be happy to review those as part of any new complaint you raise with us.

Halifax website under friequently asked questions states


Will you be reopening my complaint which was originally not upheld?
We are not reopening complaints that have already been closed. When responding to complaints, we always tell customers that they have 6 months to raise any concerns over our decision to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). If you have new or different concerns, then we’ll be happy to review those as part of any new complaint you raise with us.

So you dont only get one chance..... if you have new or different concerns, not necessarily significant ones, you only have to feel that you have nw or different information that you did not provide in your initial complaint. But you need to make a new complaint. My complaint to Halifax in March 2012 was not recorded as a new complaint. I shall make a new complaint with the additional information I provided and some further complaints about the way my correspondance was dealt with and responded to at that time

G

Blinkin73

Moneyineptitute,

I've only just seen your last post

Im sorry you feel my replies are long and ludicrous. I can only hope that that you cease reading them as well as ceasing to reply to them.

Regards
G

roonaldo

Blinkin73 wrote: »

If you have new or different concerns, then we’ll be happy to review those as part of any new complaint you raise with us.

So you dont only get one chance....

You have misunderstood what it means, your orignal concern was a PPI mis-sale. You raised a PPI mis-sale again, of which Halifax told you they will be no looking at and rejected it, so what you said here is flawed as they didnt reopen it. You cant just keep adding information to your complaint until you get the result you want. But it does seem the info on their website could be mis-leading.

Your complaint in March would have been logged as a new complaint. Every complaint received has to be logged for reporting back to the FSA. (see your reference number, it will be differnt to the one in 2009). They would have opened a new complant and rejected it, they just didnt investigate it as they have done already. They wouldnt reopen a complaint 2 1/2 years old anyway as they would have issued a final response. Firms dont just look at your complaint points only, although they will consider them to see if they are credidble and an accurante portrayal of events. When firms look at PPI sales they look at the whole sale, you could say you didnt like the carpets in the branch and you would still get the same result.

Im a contractor who deals with PPI complaints, ive dealt with numerous where customers come with a really frivilous complaint and it ends up being upheld for a completely different reason not on some generic template letter from a website.

You didnt refer it to FOS within 6 months, I dont understand why you arguing this. You seem to be cluching at straws.