FOS and the 6 month rule.

Blinkin73

Thanks for the reply Roonaldo.

Im not tryng to clutch at straws Im trying to understand. Really

Its not just Halifax's site that is misleading, Barclay's site is even more so if thats the case.

I've just looked at the reference number for both the 2009 complaint and my complaint in 2012 The reference number is the same for both.

They didn't even consider the new information i provided. The never acknowldged my new complaint and lost it in the systen until I phoned last week when they apologised and hastily cobbled together a rejection.

G

Blinkin73

Roonald, anyone would I be right in assuming that if both the complaint in 2009 and 2012 have the same reference number that means that the complaint has technically been reopened? If so would I then be right in assuming that I can write back advising of this and asking if that is their final final decision? I may be lucky enought to get the chance to refer to FOS.

I dont understand why people are upset that I am trying to get back money which I firmly believe I was misled into giving. If I do get to refer to FOS ,my case will be independently assessed. im not going to get anything for free. I wont get a refund unless they believe I deserve it.Lets face it given the circumstances they are not going to like my referral from the off. And if I do deserve a refund does it matter that I used a technicality to obtain it? A technicality which Roonaldo just gave me the idea for.

I make no apologies for being tenacious and looking for solutions rather than just accepting my fate.

G

dunstonh

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!)

The banks tend to be quite poor historically at linking issues. You got lucky. They didnt spot you made an earlier complaint. However, in this case, they have.

Blinkin73

Thanks for clarifying Cornwaller's situation Dunstonh. After reading his posts I thought as much. Howevr it does indicate that for those who missed the 6 months to refer to FOS cthey ould try this tack.

Does anyone have any thoughts in respect of the fact that both my complaint in 2009 and in March 2012 have the same reference number. Can I argue that the complaint in 2009 has been reopened?

Regards
G

dunstonh

Does anyone have any thoughts in respect of the fact that both my complaint in 2009 and in March 2012 have the same reference number. Can I argue that the complaint in 2009 has been reopened?

What internal filing system them use doesnt allow any circumvention of the FSA rules. Whether they had two reference numbers or one doesnt matter.

All you can do is put your case to the FOS and see what they say. Don't expect it to be overruled but you never know. You can just get someone who decides your case is strong enough and you can justify the three years delay.

Blinkin73

Thanks for your reply dunstonh. I understand what you are saying and I hope you wont be offended but I have also pm'd roonaldo about this. He was the one that advised that my old complaint in 2009 would have a difference reference number than my complaint in 2012 and he deals with complaints. The fact that it doesnt have a different reference number suggest to my (possibly overly optimistic and creative) mind that Halifax has inadvertantly reopened my original complaint. In which case, in theory I can now request a final final decision from them which would restart the 6 month period.

There is no harm in trying to make the best of a bad situation and using Halifax's errors to my advantage to get my casse reviewed by FOS. The worst case scenario is that I would be wasting my own time. If I am successful then I will have inadvertantly found another possible way for people who feel they have reason to reclaim their ppi payments but missed the 6 monthwindow to have their case independently reviewed

G

Blinkin73

I've just been reading all about the judicial review on a consumer action site where the posters are pro consumers.

Its funny that none of you have mentioned anything about it.

Have some of you no shame? Surely it was enough that the finacial industry deliberately misled people into paying for products that were of little benefit, without them seeking to misinform people of their options when trying to seek redress. I'm quite disgusted especially given the tone of some of your emails to me.

In case you have forgotten the Judicial review forced lenders to review all cases and contact those who were missold even if they hvent made a complaint. When reviewing the policies to see if they have been missold they must do so using guidelines drawn up by FSA in 2010. It ws lso directed to contact all people who were sold the policies in similar fashion to those it hs compensated if these involved large numbers of victims.

When Halifax wrote to me this week and used the same reference number for my recenet complint in 2012 as my original complaint in September 2009, it was doing what it was suppossed to. However, it should have reviewed my case. I shall write back highliting the judicial review ruling. If the still wont play ball they will give me a final final decision and I will have 6 months to refer to FOS.

YOU DONT JUST GET ONE BITE OF THE CHERRY

dunstonh

I've just been reading all about the judicial review on a consumer action site where the posters are pro consumers.

Its funny that none of you have mentioned anything about it.

Because it had nothing to do with your issues.

In case you have forgotten the Judicial review forced lenders to review all cases and contact those who were missold even if they hvent made a complaint.

FSA rules have been like that for some time. That doesnt affect you though.

It ws lso directed to contact all people who were sold the policies in similar fashion to those it hs compensated if these involved large numbers of victims.

Yes. So, if the lender found an individual was breaching rules on a regular basis then they would have to apply that FSA rule.

However, it should have reviewed my case. I shall write back highliting the judicial review ruling.

It had no requirement to review your case. That wasnt what the JR was about.

burty8899

sorry to wade in here, but it seems your hell bent on going to the FOS on this issue, despite people advising you that its unlikely that your case would be looked at or even if it was its not a strong argument.

your asking a lot of questions but when you get the answers you don't seem to like them. why don't you just give the FOS a ring explain the situation to them and see what they have to say. that way your hearing it from the horses mouth and not living in hope.

Blinkin73

My original coplaint and the way in which they reviewed my case in 2009 has been superceeded by the ooutcome of the judicial review and the FSA/FOS guidelines which have changed since 2009.

They didnt advise that they had reveiwed my case in light of the above. they advised that they had dealt with my case in 2009 and that a decision was made then so they wont reopen the case. Thats not correct given the changes since 2010