FOS and the 6 month rule.

Blinkin73

Thank you once again Dunstonh for your reply. It was to the point and unbiased as your replies tend to be.

I'm with you in respect of the FSA ban the word advisor if the saff dont have the relavant qualifications and regulatory permissions. But I think its more than that. I dont think people should be sold policies by any unqualified staff and unregulated staff. Two of the policies I was sold were by bank staff only one was over the phone. If a customer buys a policy in a bank/financial institution they will believe that they have been advised to buy and not just sold it no matter what the title of the person selling it.

I also hear what you are saying in respect of my call to FOS this morning. This is what I orginally thought and was a further reason for coming on this site. Im not wholly convinced that I can argue that the case has been reopened, but something is amiss. I submitted an email to halifax customer services in March2012 giving addtional reasons as to why I believe the policy was missold than the ones I gave in October 2009. All I havve recieved is a letter with the same reference number as my old old complaint stating that my case was investigated in 2009 and a copy of the response I was given at that time supplied and advised that I had been told to refer to FOS if I was not happy. They havent acknowleged the new reasons I have presented. Howeveer they have stated that if I have any queries I should contact them quoting the reference number. But the Banks own policy states that a new reference should be provided if I write to them with new concerns and a new complaint opened. I'm sure I read on the FOS site of a case where despite a bank stated that it had made its final decison and six months had past but FOS decided that as they had continued to correspond beyond this date the case could not have been said to have been closed and the 6 month period had not started until the bank reissued a final decision. Its complex but I cant help but think that they've tried to fob me off as they possibly did in 2009 when, it has been recongnised, complaints were routinely rejected without their merit bieng explored

burty8899

im not going to post in this thread any more because i don't feel i can add anything, will follow with interest to see what the outcome from the FOS is though!

magpiecottage

Blinkin73 wrote: »

I'm sure I read on the FOS site of a case where despite a bank stated that it had made its final decison and six months had past but FOS decided that as they had continued to correspond beyond this date the case could not have been said to have been closed and the 6 month period had not started until the bank reissued a final decision.

I think you may be referring to case study 3 here.

However, your case seems to be mare akin to case study 10.

I also think your argument must fail because if it did not then anybody could complain again and invalidate the timebar, making the entire concept pointless.

Two examples from personal experience.

In one of my cases, the complainant insisted on corresponding with me throughout the six month period, and beyond, citing supposed "new information". 14 months after the final response had been issued he went to FOS. My client sought to timebar and FOS accepted (this was not case study 8).

In another case (not one of mine until it was too late) a firm inadvertently issues a new final response and thus gave the complainant a new window of opportunity to go to FOS.

Having already issued a final response in respect of this sale, Halifax is under no obligation to issue a further one.

I appreciate that somebody at FOS may have told you something different but remember they are paid to send you away happy as that is a "resolution" for the call centre. They only have your side of the story and the are not qualified.

I think the only way you will get a definitive answer is to complete the form, send it off to FOS and see if Halifax objects. If it does, then you will probably be told quite promptly.

Blinkin73

Thanks Magpiecottage for your reply,

I hadn't looked at those case studies before. I looked at case studies from their monthly magazine.

The way I see it there are two main issues that Im looking at.

1. How to get my case reviewed in a fair manner
2. Whether I have a viable claim at all

Re issue number 1

I appreciate your advice magpie cottage but if I refer to FOS now my case will be rejected under the 6 month rule for sure. I fully admit I cant give a reason for my delay that will meet FOS rules on the matter.

In relation to new and additional information in respect of a ppi every bank website I have looked at states that the new information will open a new complaint that they will look at.

My bank has chosen not to do that. Its chosen to write back under the old the old reference number, neglected to respond to the new information and actually stated

" If you have any queries, or would like further information, please contact us on 0845 6014034, or alternatively respond to the above address ensuring you quote our reference number"

Having thought about I realise that I could arguely strongly that my original complaint has been reopened.

So I shall write back using the reference number that they've asked me to. If they want to address the new information under an old complaint number who am I to argue. But I will expect a final decision on the new information which I may get under the old reference number. If its unfavourable, I may get to have my case looked at by FOS if they decide the case was reopened by the bank.

Re issue number 2

Halifax TMP is made up of three stand alone policies - life, critical illness and mortgage repayments cover. They can be taken out individually or collectively.

Life insurance. I think we can all agree that I dont need life insurance as I have no dependents and never have had. This was the new information I providedd recently.

Critical illness cover. I wont be able to claim if I develop MS, ne of the 15 conditions that I could cliam for, as they will probably argue its a pre exisiting conition on account of a letter from a consultant opthamologist following an initial consultation dated 2004 where he recounts an event I told him about which occured in 2000, 2 years prior to taking out ppi. He regards the event as symptomatic of MS. I have very good cover through work if I am ill and if I cannot undertake my role or work anymore. This is yet further additional information that I will supply in my next letter to them.

Mortgage repayment. I am never going to be made redundant, but if I was there will always be a need for my skills and experience.

I have very good cover through work if I am ill and if I cannot undertake my role or work anymore which I could survive on for more than a year and family who would help out if necessary. No needs assessment was undertaken and no discussion had about any other policies or benefits thrugh work that I had to cover such matters

Apart from the life policy, I dont know all the variables that are taken into consideration when assessing the appropriateness of the sale, but whether you need it and were eligible for it are important considerations or so I understand.

If you can see any fatal flaws in this approach I'd be happy to hear them. Wasting my own time doesnt count as a fatal flaw.

I just want my case looked at fairly.I dont believe it was the first time around. I shall at the very least hope for a refund for the life insurance.

Burty8899, Thanks for your input in this thread and your continued interest. All the best

dunstonh

Critical illness cover. I wont be able to claim if I develop MS, ne of the 15 conditions that I could cliam for, as they will probably argue its a pre exisiting conition on account of a letter from a consultant opthamologist following an initial consultation dated 2004 where he recounts an event I told him about which occured in 2000, 2 years prior to taking out ppi. He regards the event as symptomatic of MS. I have very good cover through work if I am ill and if I cannot undertake my role or work anymore. This is yet further additional information that I will supply in my next letter to them.

CI cover is underwritten at point of sale and any exclusion due to underwriting decisions is given to you before going into force. You have the decision to reject the cover or proceed knowing the restriction. The fact it is underwritten at the start is what makes the complaints on CI much harder than PPI (where you only find out when you claim that they didnt cover you)

Life assurance for a single person, sole mortgage holder who lives alone with no dependants is pointless with one caveat. If you have CI cover then adding in life assurance often makes little or no difference to the premium. e.g. having just CI cover may cost £30 and life and CI may cost £30.50. Many people will go with both as a mortgage is a long term contract and whilst they dont need it now, they may later and its only a tiny difference. The latter is usually acceptable if documented as such.

Blinkin73

Thanks again for posting Dunstonh.

I confess I dont understand your answer re the CI. I cant help but wonder, should I have the misfortune to develop MS severly and become disabled or critically, if they will consider my condition to be pre exisiting given that I showd signs of it in 2000 but didnt know that when I took the policy out in 2002 and didnt realise I had shown signs until 2004 after a consultation with a consultant.

My life cover was a whopping £11.57 in 2005, not sure what it is now but for some reason I am now paying £10 more a month for the package than I was in 2005. This might be usual practice, I have no idea. That's 10.25 years that I have been paying that amount. The plan will only pay either CI orLife cover, not both.

Alpine_Star

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.

I'm afraid that this is not correct.

Although the FSA considered a requirement to review previously rejected complaints in an earlier consultation paper the proposal was abandoned in the definitive Policy Statement 10/12 which of course was upheld in it's entirety by the Judicial Review judgment.

For reference see paragraph 1.12 of PS 10/12:

''In CP10/6, we set aside the rejected PPI complaint review rule we had proposed in CP09/23.5 We do not discuss this further in this PS.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

The Consumer Action Group is the last place on earth one should go to for informed and unbiased PPI re-claiming advice.

magpiecottage

As I have previously said, you are not providing new information you had not previously provided.

The FSA rules required Halifax to give you a final response when you first complained and it did so.

The clue is in the term "final". Next week we will see the Final of Euro 2012. UEFA is not going to rerun the competition just because Ukraine's goal against England was disallowed - and FIFA are no going to rerun the 1966 final because Germany dispute an England goal.

You are to do the equivalent.

You should also be aware that Lloyds TSB (Halifax' owners) have been reported as threatening to charge complainants who try to resurrect dead complaints.

dunstonh

I confess I dont understand your answer re the CI. I cant help but wonder, should I have the misfortune to develop MS severly and become disabled or critically, if they will consider my condition to be pre exisiting given that I showd signs of it in 2000 but didnt know that when I took the policy out in 2002 and didnt realise I had shown signs until 2004 after a consultation with a consultant.

CI Cover is underwritten at the start. You declare your medical history and the provider then decides if they will offer cover, how much they may or may not increase the premium or add in exclusions. There is no such thing as pre-existing condition with CI cover. From day one they will cover it or not. If they wont cover it then they have to tell you this and add an exclusion and wont commence cover until you give the go ahead. If there are no exclusions on your CI policy then you are covered.

zedsdead_2

So. A year later, where are we with this claim?