MBNA Claim Upheld Now What

huwjohn

Impose*

I don't mean compensation.. of course you will get the compensation but what I mean is the fine will keep going into the FOS's pockets and not yours.

simon_the_poet

huwjohn wrote: »

No. I am not suggesting that you should stop complaining. You have a right to complain and raise a concern but to put things in perspective - you've gone to the FOS who have stated that they have yet to recieve a response regarding the complaint from the lender and until that happens.. you will have to wait!

You are now cross with the FOS (who have done nothing but act for you for free and tried to come to an amicable conclusion with your lender) but they are experiencing the same problems you faced. Your argument was that you want them to "enforce" the company to act in some way, but what I was trying to get across to you is that they can't force a company to do anything. If the company delays, they will get fined but once a fine has been opposed all the FOS can do is keep fining them, but you don't get compensation - the FOS do!

Yes i see what you mean, but I am sure faced with the prospect of an iminant fine, they are more likely to pay up, isn't this what has happened in the past.
So having said that wouldn't you agree that it is a good idea to gather enough people together and present the case, and that these people deserve a little reminder, and that the public will not be fobbed off with poor service.

As for your point about the service being free, are you implying that we should be "grateful" for this and accept poor service because we don't (directly) pay for it ? I suppose you could apply the same criteria to the NHS education etc.

Perhaps we should all just stop complaining and "making peoples lives a misery", we should all just be content, and just let them make ours one.

huwjohn

It depends what you mean by "poor service". If "poor service" means you're not hearing what you want to hear - then that's unfortunate but the FOS can't do anything except keep fining and fining. It might work and it might not, but that's not the FOS's fault. As for "these people deserve a little reminder" - this is where your comments start bordering on threatening, because the "people" you are referring to are people who are just doing their jobs.

Let's get to the nitty gritty here, you just want money and when you get it you won't care about "presenting cases" and "gathering in bulk" because you'll be home and dry. Also have the FOS even upheld your complaint?? If not, you don't even know if your getting any money yet!

This PPI thing has been blown way out of proportion. There a people presenting cases that are complete fabrications and some outright exaggerations. It's turning into a mob culture and one I feel is a sad reflection on our money grabbing society.

huwjohn

Apologies, I have just re-read and your case has been upheld but it's just a waiting game now.. even you said you'd resigned yourself to another month.

simon_the_poet

Now i believe we are getting to the root of our disagreement, you see I believe that the banks have been getting away with murder by selling people insurance they do not need for some time, and are only now being held to account.

You seem to believe that people are taking advantage of the poor banks silly error. Perhaps we should feel sorry for them, after all as you say they are just people doing a job, perhaps we should all withdraw our complaints and let them keep our cash , hey it's only money.

huwjohn

Not at all. Aside from the fact that this was not your loan for a start, this is why I am anti the "mob culture". I accept the banks made an error but not to the degree you describe.

As you are aware, Payment Protection Insurance was sold to many customers going back about ten/twenty years. The regulatory bodies subsequently changed the way PPI should be sold and these guidelines were backdated retrospectively. This meant that when companies were sure they were following the correct guidelines, the retrospective guidelines meant that they weren’t.
In most agreements, PPI is noted on their agreement as being an “optional” purchase i.e. it is a choice. Whether or not the agent apparently “told” the customer they had to taken out the policy is irrelevant and a matter to be addressed to the agent in question. The fact is, had the customer read and understood their documents, they should have simply queried why it was mandatory when the document clearly stated it was “optional”. I would agree wholeheartedly with the consumer if they felt that the policy had been mis-sold because it stated on the policy that it was mandatory, because it was simply not in most cases, but, even in this instance the customer was always free to look elsewhere and not accept the conditions of the agreement if they felt the additional PPI would cause them any undue inconvenience. Desperation for a loan, hardship etc are not grounds in my view to accept unacceptable conditions. The fact is the customer knew what they were signing and agreed to be legally bound by the terms and conditions of that contract.
The most painful aspect of the whole charade is that customers have become very greedy. Customers have been feigning ignorance, lying about being pressurized into buying policies they didn’t need, claiming advisors told them things they didn’t (which incidentally could cost that advisor their job) and/or simply fabricating stories in an attempt to get a redress of their PPI. Some customers do this even if they didn’t have PPI on their policies. I find that a sad reflection of today’s society when money turns the rule of civilization into anarchy. It is simply greed!
This has led to a major increase in unscrupulous claims management companies or “fly by night” firms cashing in on the vulnerability of consumers with their “no win, no fee” and “call us today” slogans. Sadly, it has extended to unscrupulous solicitors who see an advantage in making money out of this money making system and their duty of care to their client simply goes out of the window.
Company names and reputations are also being slandered and dragged through the media on account of media frenzy and greedy consumers will stop at nothing to exploit sometimes innocent limited businesses and cause irreparable damage to the reputation of its employees at the cost of jobs, the security of Family life, the security of employee’s wellbeing and services.

simon_the_poet

Update, That was quick
Just had a conformation e-mail from the FOS saying that the matter has been passed to their "Post assessment team".

At least I have it in writing now. Onward and upward
Simon

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi everyone

We've removed a few posts, let's keep it friendly please. If you don't like someone's posts please do add them to your ignore list.

Meanwhile, back on topic, a couple of news stories/blogs on our main site may interest you.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/loans/2013/01/co-op-fined-113300-for-putting-ppi-claims-on-hold

http://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2013/01/24/i-reject-accusations-of-pushing-compensation-culture/

simon_the_poet

Thanks for that, I had highlighted the co-op case earlier, didn't know it was already on here, as for the other arguments, Martin argues them much better than I could so I would be grateful if it was left at that as far as this thread is concerned.

I have decided to take the FOS at their word and see if MBNA respond this time. I do not blame the FOS of course, but I do think it is time these matters were resolved.

A number of contributors both on here and on other websites have contacted me and I am considering issuing a joint complaint to MBNA in the first instance, just complaint numbers and FOS references, I have eight so far.

If anyone else is having similar problems I will be happy to either include them or be included in their complaint. Anyway for now, see how it goes.

Andy_010210

I have been given a name by a contact who works there who you should write to- maybe this will stimulate them into some action as what is happening is clearly unacceptable. You need to write Tristan Lynes c/o MBNA at Chester. He allegedly is in charge of PPI.