FOS and the 6 month rule.

src007

Blinkin73 wrote: »

Please could you help and give some advice on my options.

I've been paying for Halifax total mortgage protection for the past 10 years. This consists of three different elements - life, criticl illness and mortgage repyment cover. I pay one monthly premium.

I became aware in 2009 that the policy was missold to me for a variety of reason
1. I work for a local authority and as such recieve 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay if I am ill in addition to death benefits should I be misfortunate enough to die early.
2. As a child protection social worker whose skills have always been in short supply I am never going to be made redundant
3. I was told at the time that it would be beneficial to my mortgage application should I take out such a policy.

People on here moan all the time about the number of misguided complaints being made. Yet when someone tries to do some research they blast them down.

I find this strange as well Blinkin73.

1) Six months full pay and six months half pay won't make mortgage PPI unsuitable. This is because mortgage payments are usually high and the consequences of missing payments are harsh.

What would happen if you were out of work for more than a year? Would your half pay support the mortgage payments for six months with other bills to pay as well? Would it make your life a hell of a lot easier to have the support of that insurance cover, when ill or unable to work?

2) What many people have learnt during recession is that almost no job and certainly no person is indispensable.

3) If you can prove you were told that you had a better chance of success in getting the mortgage by taking PPI you may have a chance. How can you prove this?

An example of new information would be evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that was not available to you at the time of making the complaint.

The main way I've found to get a complaint to FOS if the six months is missed is if the lender made a mistake with the Final Response letter. For example they should have told you that you had 6 months to go to FOS and enclosed a FOS leaflet and if they didn't, the 6 months doesn't start.

The Judicial Review didn't change the way in which banks should review complaints. They should have looked at complaints fairly all the time. They were systematically rejecting valid complaints and so the FSA issued guidance explaining how PPI complaints should have been handled all along. The guidance was only telling lenders what they should have been doing already. It was this FSA's information that the JR was about. So there was never ''new rules'' in place about how complaints should be handled. There wasn't an ‘’old’’ set of rules that were replaced. There are no ‘‘new’’ rules to reassess the complaint against.

I hope this is clear.

Blinkin73

Thank you again magpie cottage for the reply.I meant that. I have already acknowledged that I obviously cant say that I have only just found out I have no dependents. Howevr I think there has been a little confusion.

I have been enquiring about how to what a bank would consider new infnformation to be. I have just received a pm from a person who was rejected by their bank intitally but then spllied them with information about ther work benefits which were 6 onths full pay and 6 months half pay, as well a a copy of a the banks paperwork which stated that the PPI was compulsory. Neither of these pieces of information can be said to be new in the way you claim the information has to be, but their claim was reopened by the bank and they got their premiums back with interest.

The reference you gave me 3.3.4(6) in full "the subject matter of the complaint has previously been considered or excluded under the Financial Ombudsman Service, or a former scheme (unless material new evidence which the Ombudsman considers likely to affect the outcome has subsequently become available to the complainant);"

relates to FOS and not a bank reopening a case, something I had not even considered could happen. The heading of chapter 3 - compliant handling procedures of the Financial Ombudsman Service supports my interpretation also.

So no need to ring FOS tomorrow or saturday about this but I should ring my bank for further clarification as to what they consider to be new information - maybe barclays statment on the matter is as it states and that nw information is what I consider to be new information and should have been dealt with under a seperate complaint. I will ring FOS to discuss the impication of the having my most recnet complaint which provided new information, handled and rejected under the same reference number as my original complaint.

So as I see it, and I may be wrong, anyone in my position may have a number of options.

1. Try a new claim pretending they never made the first one
2. Write back to the bank proving and highlighting that new evidence was given and not consiered, if rejected go to fos but make sure you do it in 6 months to avaid this whole saga again
3. Argue the toss that the new information should have been handled as a new complaint and given a new reference, as it hasnt been so handled, the old complaint has been reopened and a new final decision required. If the new final decision is a rejection fo the complaint, refer to Fos within 6 months.

I will report back after I have found more information from my bank and fos.

Regards
G

Blinkin73

src007, thank you so so much for your post.

I obviously I would have been a happier bunny if your answer were more to my liking but I take on board eveery thing you say. And I cant tell you how relieved I am that you can see that I'm just trying to find out information, what the rules are so to speak.

My half pay would cover my mortgage and bills ( I pay interest only on my mortage which is £100 pounds a month at the mo, and at half pay I would take home just over a grand. IF If I was sick for longer than a year I would be paid a lump sum and retired early with a pension. Actually I am too young to be retired but I would be let go with a lump sum

Seriously, I have no chance of being made redundant as an experienced child protection social worker. Even now, with the high rates of unemployment and, all the local goverment cuts, not one social worker working for a local authoirty was made redundant and local authorities cant recruit all the social workers they need. Its always been this way. Its a difficult, risky, and exhausting job. Those working in the volunary sector havent been so fortunate.

I know I cant prove I was told I had more chance of getting the mortgage with ppi. But we all know this sort of shenanigans took place. Interestingly th FSA handbook that I have just been glancing through talks about the weight given to oral evidence, its not dismissive of it. Personally I cant see how you can make a decison on verbal testimonies without supporting evidence. You might as well toss a coin to decide who it telling the truth. In other words I accpet its not a strong arguement.

Regards
G

dunstonh

Interestingly th FSA handbook that I have just been glancing through talks about the weight given to oral evidence, its not dismissive of it.

It is not dismissive of it as an allegation is an allegation. It still needs to be looked at. However, like any walk of life, if there is no evidence to support the allegation, then you wont get far. So, its is more a process of steps leading to nothing rather than being dismissive. However, some complaints that were only made on the basis of an allegation will get lucky. A failing that they were not aware of may be identified and result in redress. Or during the backlog period, a number of banks had a criteria for auto paying out without even looking at the case. This is in part why claims companies want people to complain about anything and everything and dont care whether the reasons are valid or truthful. They know that a good proportion of the try-it-on complaints will get lucky.

That matched previous issues that have occurred. I was given figures by a compliance company that dealt with endowment complaints that found only 25 in 1000 were actually confirmed mis-sales. However, a further 225 out of that 1000 got redress not because it was it was mis-sold but the paperwork had got lost, was poorly recorded or documented. Again, it wasnt the 25 mis-sold cases in 1000 that the claims companies focused on but the 225 "lucky" breaks.

Go back further than the person that set up the pension review to look at pension mis-selling has since said that too many people got redress who didnt deserve it.

Information evolves over time. With endowments, early complaints about mortgages past retirement used to get upheld. Then it became clear that complaints on that basis were being abused (people were saying their retirement was 50 and mortgage went past it so it was mis-sold). Later complaints tended then to fail on that basis. We have seen a few examples recently where people have said the FOS have rejected the complaint even though they had 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. Yet last year that was a strong reason. Now, it doesnt appear to be. Possibly as there was a misconception that plans wouldnt pay out. Some dont but many will. So, this is evolving too.

Going a bit OT in places there but its good to talk...

However, we only know limited info here when people post. We rely on what is said. We do not have access to the documentation or information that the complaints handler or the FOS have. There are plenty of valid complaints that get rejected due to no evidence to back them up and there are plenty of dodgy complaints that get paid out despite no wrong doing.

Rule books and guidelines are black & white when written down but in reality it is all shades of grey. What should happen may not happen and what we think will happen may not even if it should.

magpiecottage

That is interesting. If we assume the figures DunstonH gives are true (rather than, as I suspect, examples), that would mean they have full files for 775 out of 1000 cases and found only 25 missales.

Thus the failure rate is 25/775.

That means of 225 with no surviving file it is likely that only

225 X 25/775 = 8 cases were missold.

So 225 - 8 = 218 were given redress to which they would not have been entitled if the file had been available.

magpiecottage

You might find it helpful to look here.

Interestingly, new information is NOT cited as a reason to reopen.

Blinkin73

Dunstonh, thank you for your elequent post. I too have a big problem with people making claims for money they dont deserve, and dont get me started on claims companies!

Having said that, this is a consumer advice website that promotes people claiming back money if they believe they have been misold a ppi.
So I dont know why a number of people on this site are posting when they seem to despise this ethos. If consumers cant access the relevant information, or are provided with obviously biased replies designed t put them off claiming many will go on to use claims companies vultures.

It has to be remembered that this site states, well Wendy MSE does, that they believe that a significant number of ppi policies were misold.

If the financial industry in general hadnt of been so greedy and missold a significant proportion of PPI's then they wouldnt be in the position that they are now so I have little sympathy for them to be honest. Customers trusted the financial advice they were given. Many advisors prioritised their need for commission rather than the customers need for a policy. And as I have stated I dont believe I am trying to make a claim on bogus grounds.

Magpiecottage there seems to be some confusion. I am not trying to get my case reopened by FOS. They have never had the opportunity to review my case for it to be reopened. But according to the FSA guidance that you brought to my attention it would appear that cases can be reopened by them.

I want my bank to relook at my claim in light of the new information I provided. But they didnt look at the new information and sent a glib letter telling me my case had been looked into in 2009 and rejected. They didnt even follow their own policies and open up a new complaint and provide rationale for their actions within the timescales.

I spoke to FOS this morning re the old claim reference number and according to them it does seem as though the case has been inadvertantly reoopened and therfore if I write again to my bank and get a final final decison rejecting my claim and the new information the case can be reopened. .

burty8899

so basically the FOS will look at it once you get the final written from the bank and all it took was 1 phone call and not 4 pages worth of posts....

people on here have tried to help, as i and others told you a long time ago now (or so it feels) to get your direct answer ring them, you did eventually follow the advice and got the answer you were after!

a lot of people come on here and say i had PPI and i want my money back, they give no reasons as to why they were mis sold. people may seem negative but unless you have a good reason then its not worth putting it in. you evan get people coming in saying i had a CC by some company i can't remember and have no paperwork for and it might have had PPI on it back in 1990! yes they can be advised to put a SAR in to the company they think it was from, but if you can't remember any detail how can you be expected to remember how it was sold and why you thought it was mis-sold! The FOS already has an 18 month turn around time so the less bogus claims that they get the more chance the genuine claims get to be resolved faster - FYI I'm not saying yours isn't genuine I'm just saying thats why you may think people are being negative.

I agree this forum is for advice but sometimes the best advice is to criticise so you can get your facts and complaint in order so when the bank questions you, you know what do and say and what your actually complaining about (i.e. don't go for he said/she said arguments if your PPI policy was single premium, as i learnt!) you learn what the strongest point of your complaint is.

good luck with the FOS

Blinkin73

Hi Burty8899, Thank you for your post. I am aware that it was you who recommended that I contact FOS directly.Thank you. That was after a majority of posters criticised and insulted and judged me based on nothing more than their own prejudice for a couple f pages. I am also aware that lots of people are chancing it at present and I dont agree with that either. You're preaching to the converted!

Sadly I dont think anyone reading the whole thread would view those negative and biased respones as constructive criticism in order to help me develop my claim. In fact it looks like many posters jumped on whatever they could to dissuade me from trying anymore and make it seem that I had no claim in the first instance.

When I asked a question, the answer to which might have worked in my favour to get my case reviewed, most posters stayed silent or didnt answer at all. How many people said "you only get one bite of the cherry" which is untrue. Someone even stated that I would have received a letter by now from my bank informing me if I was entitled to receiving my money back.

The most significant piece of information that I have received from this thread is from Roonaldo re the claim reference number and that seemed like a bit of an accident to be honest. The support I have recieved didnt, for the most part, come from regular posters who are in the know about these things.

I personally used this site because I work fulltime and its difficult for me to phone FOS to get informtion during working hours and I thought it would be supportive. Other people will have their own reasons for posting here. There is obviously a need for this site and forum, look at the numbers posting and reading. Should they all have just phoned FOS or FSA or whoever?

This post has become rather long in part due to the objectionable and biased responses of some posters. It has not just become a post about a PPI question but about the tone and content of posts and ethics.

I think people coming to this forum should be careful about the weight they afford to some posters answers and not just assume that the poster isnt providing partial and distorted and sometimes innaccurate responses.

I must say that I never dreamed that the post would develop in this way before I am accussed of being a troll again.

Funnily enough, I got a free trial on experion to discover who it was that gave me a loan in December 2004. I couldnt remember the lender only that I was told definitively that I had to have PPI. I thought it strange at the time that noone asked any questions about my health as I'd had only a few months previously had an episode and MRI scan that indicated that I have/will go on to develop MS.

Though it doesnt apply to me, I'd be interested to here more as to why the hesaid/she said arguement doesnt apply in particular to single premium ppi's. As I've indicated in a previous post, I cant see it being a very strong arguement in any situation unless its a recoeded phone call.

Right, Im off to work on my next letter to the Halifax which will need to be carefully crafted. If anyone has any pointers or suggestions as to definitely what not to do I'd love to hear. I doubt that many people are in my position, ie that their bank has inadvertantly reopened their old complaint so you wouldnt be opening the floodgates.

Thanks

Thanks

dunstonh

That is interesting. If we assume the figures DunstonH gives are true (rather than, as I suspect, examples), that would mean they have full files for 775 out of 1000 cases and found only 25 missales.

The figures were quoted in a compliance meeting that was focusing on the importance of documentation. They were based on their actual experience of complaints that they did then equated that to an average per 1000 complaints. Some of those 225 that they had to pay out on could well be genuine mis-sales but there wasnt enough to say they were but not enough to say they were not.

Having said that, this is a consumer advice website that promotes people claiming back money if they believe they have been misold a ppi.
So I dont know why a number of people on this site are posting when they seem to despise this ethos. If consumers cant access the relevant information, or are provided with obviously biased replies designed t put them off claiming many will go on to use claims companies vultures.

Some of us here focus on certain areas. I wont post on the simple cases and tend to look at the more complicated ones. More often than not it is complicated because of lack of evidence or understanding or a different distribution channel.

This can give the impression that some of us are negative but in reality we are telling it how it is. Better to be aware of the issues and understand why they exist.

Customers trusted the financial advice they were given.

Advised cases only account for 0.2% of PPI complaints at the FOS according to FOS stats. your error is very similar to many people. They assume the sales people are advisers. They are not. I wish the FSA would ban the use of the word adviser in financial services unless the required qualifications and regulatory permissions are held. PPI is not an advice failure. It is a sales failure.

I spoke to FOS this morning re the old claim reference number and according to them it does seem as though the case has been inadvertantly reoopened and therfore if I write again to my bank and get a final final decison rejecting my claim and the new information the case can be reopened.

Remember that the FOS telephone staff generally agree with everything you say. They are not the people that handle the complaints or know the rules. The problem will come when an adjudicator looks at is and the bank say we rejected it in the past and this is a second attempt years later. It doesnt matter what reference numbers are used internally. Different software for different firms will do things differently.