FOS and the 6 month rule.

dunstonh

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.

The JR wasnt about past complaints. It was about future complaints. The banks wanted to eliminate certain groups from being able to complain and didnt want the FSA to apply 2011 rules retrospectively as they felt it was unfair.

They didnt advise that they had reveiwed my case in light of the above.

They have no need to review it as nothing changed for you.

roonaldo

Blinkin73 wrote: »

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.

they are only writing to the people where there could be sales failings in the sale of the PPI, remember its not wrong to have ppi and having it doesnt mean its mis-sold.

they wont write to you as you have made a complaint, they reviewed and rejected it already. also they may not consider it to be in a sales channel where there were sales failings,

Blinkin73

It wasnt about future complaints either. The judicial review requested that ppi sales be reviewed whether or not a complaint had been made. One of the contentious rulings was that new FSA/FOS guidelines are being applied retrospectively. Favourable for the consumer, not so beneficial to the financial industry. past PPi sales need to be reviewed in light of the JR and new guidelines

roonaldo

Blinkin73 wrote: »

It wasnt about future complaints either. The judicial review requested that ppi sales be reviewed whether or not a complaint had been made. One of the contentious rulings was that new FSA/FOS guidelines are being applied retrospectively. Favourable for the consumer, not so beneficial to the financial industry. past PPi sales need to be reviewed in light of the JR and new guidelines

no, only sales where there could be sales failings. Not all ppi was mis-sold.

dunstonh

The judicial review requested that ppi sales be reviewed whether or not a complaint had been made.

no it didnt. The FSA rules already covered that but it doesn't apply to you unless it has been identified that the salesperson that happened to sell your policy has had multiple occurrences and a trend identified. In that case they have to review all cases by that person.

There is nothing wrong with PPI as a product. Just because you have PPI, does not mean you were mis-sold. Most people were not. There is no requirement for them to write to people pro-actively unless they have reasons to believe that you were mis-sold.

roonaldo

dunstonh wrote: »

no it didnt. The FSA rules already covered that but it doesn't apply to you unless it has been identified that the salesperson that happened to sell your policy has had multiple occurrences and a trend identified.
.

yes, and even poor branches, call centres etc where they have indentfied poor sales.

i know one major bank that actually has some auditors in checking sales documents and picking out individual sales that were poor.

dunstonh

roonaldo wrote: »

yes, and even poor branches, call centres etc where they have indentfied poor sales.

i know one major bank that actually has some auditors in checking sales documents and picking out individual sales that were poor.

yes. it can be anywhere in the chain. It just requires enough cases to show a trend.

However, firms have been doing this for years. The FSA reminded them of the responsibilities and the media went on to misreport the intention. I remember a case in the late 90s where a bank tied agent did things wrong and they picked a sample of other cases that looked similar to audit and from those they realised that nearly all cases he did were wrong and they put it right on the lot pro-actively.

I know a firm locally who had a pensions thematic review and had to offer redress to three clients even though they hadnt complained (although from what I understand, none of them took it up as it was just a documentation failure and not an advice failure and they were happy with the advice).

This is nothing new. It was poorly reported in the media though when the FSA issued it's reminder. It was reported by some that firms would have to write out willy nilly but that is not the case.

Cornwaller1

Blinkin73, just to clarify my point. I submitted a new claim.I did not refer to any previous one.I did it as if it was the first time.If you do this you can include all the points you omitted before. FORGET the knock-back just start anew but hurry up,the claims can't go on forever.

[Deleted User]

Cornwaller1 wrote: »

the claims can't go on forever.

But this thread can, seemingly!:eek:

Josephine.M

I sent all my paperwork to the FOS about 2 weeks ago, should I receive a letter confirming they have received them? Josephine,M