Audi finance ppi claim

[Deleted User]

Stupid_Question wrote: »

A common misconception is that the FOS are a regulator and lenders are somehow scared of them.
The FOS is an adjudicator, nothing more.

Remember that it was you who originally suggested the OP should report Audi's seeming tardiness to FOS. I said FOS could take no sanction and it would not change the outcome of the OP's complaint. Nothing you have said subsequently has changed my opinion.
As you say, the FSA will step in if a lender makes continual failures in adhering to the timescales agreed. However, the only action I'm aware of them ever taking in this regard was to extend the eight week period for a time!

I should have typed "FSA" rather than "FOS" in one sentence of my last post, I've now corrected that error.

magpiecottage

barmybanker wrote: »

First letter received dated 6/11/12 from VW Financial Services confirming receipt and stated that they would investigate issues and respond within 8 weeks.

That is right - under the Consumer Credit Act 2006, they have to deal with complaints about anything happening on or after 6 April 2007 under the same rules.

[quoteSecond letter dated 29th Nov from Audi Finance again thanking me for my enquiry and stating that they didnt deal with the selling of Audi Finance ppi and so forwarded my letter to Teesside Audi. [/quote]

So they responded in just over three weeks saying it was not them and they were forwarding it to the firm that should answer it. That closes their complaint.

Third letter dated 17th Dec (blank paper) writing in response to my letter and to confirm that the matter is receiving attention and enclosed a copy of their complaints procedure (Financial Ombudsman leaflet) it was signed "Colebrook & Burgess Ltd????

Teeside Audi is a trading name of Colebrook & Burgess Limited, who are responsible for answering the complaint.

It is not a "third" letter, but, in fact the first from them.

Under FSA rule DISP 1.7.2R, their eight weeks only started when they first learned of your complaint.

The earliest date on which we know Colebrook & Burgess was aware of the complaint was 17 December.

Fourth letter dated 9th Jan again blank paper again acknowledging receipt and again confirming the matter is receiving attention and again enclosing complaints procedure. This was signed by a guy from Teesside Audi. Fifth and final letter dated 11th Feb "Final response letter" Finally on letter head

That is exactly 8 weeks after 17 December - so you cannot prove a timescale breach.

At the time he would have assessed your need for the product and supplied you with original demands and needs questionnaire and statement for your records.

The norm, in responding to a complaint, would be to provide a copy of that questionnaire.

The fact that the cannot might be taken by FOS as an indication that it never existed. For that reason, I think there is a possibility that a complaint might succeed.

In addition, if a single premium was added to the loan, rather than premiums being paid monthly, the chance of an uphold will be higher.

barmybanker

Is there anything in particular that I should quote to the FOS then to make my case weighted in my favour??? I know what you saying about complaint letters but the salesman did not give me an option about taking ppi nor did he assess if I needed it. I thought that was the whole point of ppi miss selling? (Not done anything like this before so apologies for sounding thick)

magpiecottage

If you say it was not explained that it was not necessary and you were not given a statement of demands and needs (if true).

Also if it was a single premium added to the loan then say that.

barmybanker

I take it by single premium you mean a one off payment??? I paid monthly but it was in with the finance.

amersall

Yours was Single Premium, this was the total PPI added to the loan and you pay it back monthly over the term with interest.

magpiecottage

amersall wrote: »

Yours was Single Premium, this was the total PPI added to the loan and you pay it back monthly over the term with interest.

I would say so too. If it was actually a monthly premium it would be paid to the insurer, not the lender - so there would be two payments to different firms.

Uphold rate for that at FOS is not 100% but it IS very high.

barmybanker

Thanks people. Will let you know how I get on