FOS and the 6 month rule.

Blinkin73

@ moneyineptitude in particular

A reminder of forum etiquette and what a troll is as copied and pasted from this site

Please be nice to all MoneySavers : There's no such thing as a stupid question and, even if you disagree, courtesy helps.
Please be sensitive : This may be a web forum, but you're still talking to other human beings. Repeatedly or harshly saying someone's wrong, especially on boards like DebtFreeWannabe, Bankruptcy or Benefits, can lead to upset.

We're proud that many people whose financial problems exacerbate mental health issues seek help in the forum, but this means you may be berating someone who's clinically depressed. Please think twice before posting judgmental comments. Don't feed the trolls : Sadly the web has a habit of throwing up a very small but vocal number of trolls, people who are nasty or contrary just to get a rise out of you. If someone's doing this, simply don't reply, just report it to [EMAIL="forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com"]forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL]. If you get involved and fling mud back, you risk being barred from using the forum too.

Please think about what it says before you respond in a knee jerk and emotional manner.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

[
So to force them to look at the case again, you would have to show that, on the balance of probability, in 2009 you did not know you had no dependents at the time you took the policy out.

..And yet the OP still claims no one has answered his question about what constitutes "new information"
Again, I say DO NOT FEED THE TROLL

Blinkin73

Moneyineptitude you clearly havent read my post correctly or understood what a troll is. Goodnight and sleep well x

Ps I am a her

[Deleted User]

burty8899 wrote: »

as i said in my previous post, if you think you have new information for the FOS then ring them up and have a conversation with them. that would save you 19 posts on a forum and you would know the answer directly.

I know.
Why would anyone other than an internet troll continue to post with the same question over and over?
I'm especially concerned that the Op seems to be so informed about this site and about PPI generally.

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Do you suspect, as I now do, that this is the work of an internet troll? Otherwise, as you say, why does this user not simply approach FOS and get the answer in minutes rather than days?

Maybe.

On the other hand, may simply be cross with us for giving answers he does like. (He certainly objected to me highlighting the weakness of his position).

One thing, though, he tells us he complained less than three years ago. That in turn means the bank will hold records of that complaint (because FSA Rule DISP 1.9.1R(2) requires it to).

So the the bank is likely to spot it and complaint will almost certainly be thrown out - as has happened.

An attempt to go to FOS will therefore also be spotted as out of time.

burty8899

not being funny, but you said you have written to the bank, they have rejected your reasons again, using the same reference number as 2009. so i think its time to ring the FOS you have the banks decision in writing twice, they may not look at the case or agree to take it on until you have the final written from the bank but I'm damned sure they will be able to advise you on what you think is new information or evan if you have a reason for complaint. it hurts no one to ring them, this could have been resolved last week had you followed my original advice.

i have kept my points blunt and to the point without emotion. people have advised you, you either didn't like it or didn't believe it so the simplest course of action is to ring the people who can advise you and would take on the complain and see what they say.

also im not saying that your case is fake or your trying to cheat - i simply said that your reasons are extremely week and hard to prove. what your expecting the bank and the FOS to believe is that when your were sold the policy you had no dependants and the policy was no use to you (although I'm sure life insurance usually covers you for loss of limb etc so maybe not). your other reasons are he said/she said so extremely difficult to prove. the fact you say you can never be made redundant is tripe - everyone can be made redundant nobody can predict what will happen in the future and there is no such thing as a job for life.

people have said your reasons are weak and the chances of the FOS doing anything with it are extremely slim, especially as the bank has linked the 2 complaints. however you seem hell bent on winning this so, get the final written decision from the bank and then ring the FOS ad see what they tell you - quite simple really!

also you slated this forum off in your previous post to my last, so i say you don't like it!

im not sure what more you want from this forum? you seem clued up on the whole issue, your point revolves around new information, clearly the only people who can really answer this is either the bank or the FOS so give either or both a ring and tell us what they say that way we can either eat humble pie or say we told you so!

this is my last post on this thread, unless you can come back and actually say what the FOS/bank said and require feedback.

Blinkin73

Thanks Burty 8899. I appreciate your neutral tone. Blunt is fine. Rude isn't. Given the animosity and how impartial some of the responses appear to me to be I have been suspicious of some of the posters. I didnt have time to call FOS today re how to interpret what constitutes new info. I interpreted it as meaning me supplying new information that I had not previously made the bank aware of. Nothing anywhere that I have seen states that it has to be new information that I was not aware of at the time of my original complaint. I its what I want to hear or not so that people are better informed.

People have said a lot things that are not entirely correct (including me but Im a bit more clued up about the judicial review and what it means now and people are still debating it full meaning on quite a few sites i've seen including this one).

Im not cross with the answers given I am angered by the way people have given their answers. On this post two people who have previously been rejected by banks and have put fresh claims after failing to go to FOS and been refunded their money. So what has been posted by magpie cottage isn't entirely correct, and as I have stated I gave the bank my previus complaint details. However I am grateful for the reference which I will look up for myself.

Whilst some posters have said I have a weak claim , many appear not to have taken on board fully what the grounds I complained about because I havnt elaborated. From what I have read and I may be wrong, the banks now have to apply new standards retrospectively when looking at claims. For example the banks should now undertake a needs assessment to see what insurances I required. They didnt. if they had I they would defintiely have seen I didnt require life insurance, which with the package of three policies that my bank provided is a stand alone policy ). And they are required to discuss the finer important points of the policies rather than merely rely on providing documents which state somewhere what these finer points such as medical exlcusions etc are. Obviously I am now wondering if these new complaints could serve as a basis fr repening a case I wasnt aware of them 2.5 years ago as they didnt exist ujtil the judicial review. I dont expect many of you to agree with this. But if you presented a polite and balanced reason as to why this wouldnt work and provided references to that I could look up the guidance myself, I would accept such an arguement.

It seems to me that some are projecting their own behaviour on to me. I just hope that, fr the love of God, they take their own advice and stop posting comments that dont add to the thread at all.

Regards

G

[Deleted User]

Blinkin73 wrote: »

I didnt have time to call FOS

Isn't that your whole reason for this thread?:p

Blinkin73

No. You've misread/misonctrued it. The discussion has developed a bit.

To summarise
I wanted to know if my bank could reject what I thought was new information. Apparently the information is only new if I it was something that I wasn't and couldnt have been aware of at the time of my claim. I still am unclear as to what constitutes new information. Thats what I will be ringing FOS about when I get the chance which wont be tomorrow, but hopefully will happen on Friday. I shall let you know what they say

Then I wanted to know if there was a way to get my case reviewed by fos because I missed the 6 month deadline, which I cant. unless I make a new claim and as has happened for others, the banks dont realise that I made a previous one. They will then either accept my claim and refund me or reject me and I will the be able t go to FOS to review my case.

Along the way a few other bits of information and misinformation have been provided.

I hope that helps

Regards
G

magpiecottage

Blinkin73 wrote: »

I still am unclear as to what constitutes new information.

FSA Rule DISP 3.3.4(6) says the complaint can be dismissed without considering its merits "unless material new evidence which the Ombudsman considers likely to affect the outcome has subsequently become available to the complainant" (my emboldening).

Whilst the fact that you had no dependants might be material, it is hardly credible to suppose you have only just found this out.