Reclaim CPP article discussion

fish26

I have contacted the FOS today regarding my pre-2005 complaint against M & S Bank. They confirmed that they were unable to proceed any further with my complaint as M & S were not regulated in the 1990's when I bought my insurance.
However, I double checked with the adjudicator and she confirmed that they were regulated from 2001 and so if you bought a policy then- it would be within their jurisdiction.
I am including a section from the e-mail I received from them:


about your complaint

Your complaint concerns the mis sale of a Card Safe policy in conjunction with an M&S charge card for policy premiums taken prior to 14 January 2005.

It may be helpful if I explain that we are bound by the Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”) Handbook - Dispute Resolution Rules (“DISP”) which govern what complaints fall within our jurisdiction.

The business was not regulated by the FCA until 14 January 2005. Prior to this in 2001, it was a member of a relevant former scheme, namely the General Insurance Standard Council (“GISC”). As a result it was brought within our jurisdiction.

However, the sale of your policy was in 1992 (independently confirmed by your policy administrator – Card Protection Plan Limited) and therefore, whilst I empathise with your circumstances, I am unable to consider the merits of your complaint.


Hope this is helpful.

[Deleted User]

fish26_QUOTES_OMBUDSMAN wrote: »

]The business was not regulated by the FCA until 14 January 2005. Prior to this in 2001, it was a member of a relevant former scheme, namely the General Insurance Standard Council (“GISC”).

Thanks for the correction. I admit I was unaware of them subscribing to the GISC rules from 2001.

fish26_QUOTES_OMBUDSMAN wrote: »

the sale of your policy was in 1992 and therefore, whilst I empathise with your circumstances, I am unable to consider the merits of your complaint.

I think the failure of your complaint was already established some posts back.

fish26 wrote: »

They confirmed that they were unable to proceed any further with my complaint

I don't really understand the need to establish "confirmation" of this? You surely didn't think you could somehow challenge the rules?

Nevertheless, have you also complained to M&S for their failure to tell you that you could not refer your complaint to the Ombudsman? They might offer (some) compensation for the time wasted by their error.

oldtractor

I had a loan about 7 or 8 years ago from Barclays I also had a Barclay card as did my husband. --we dont have these anymore. I had a M&S store card and a Debenhams storecard too. Also a Laura Ashley one.
Will I have paid PPI on these products please? and if so how do I claim it back

[Deleted User]

This thread is about CPP card protection.

The procedure to complain about PPI is here;
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance?_ga=1.232189341.340047350.1365283676


No one here can tell you whether you had the insurance or not...

Reclaim

My husband had the cpp scheme letters sent to him, we sent the letter back but have now had a letter saying we missed the bar date? We also have no idea what this policy was on? We have no credit cards now but a few back when this policy was mistakenly taken out! Can we make a separate claim if we call cpp and find out what product was sold to us?

[Deleted User]

Reclaim wrote: »

Can we make a separate claim if we call cpp and find out what product was sold to us?

Since the Refund scheme is now closed, the answer is no. You were too late.

paramount23

I claimed through the CPP redress scheme for premiums paid after 2005, got the money back without any issues. However I failed to understand why it was only going back to 2005 when I knew I had been lied to by HSBC staff in the mid 1990's claiming the same 'benefits' they were still making in 2011 !!!.

All the ( in my personal opinion) nonsense the banks were hiding behind regarding when they were regulated and by whom just didn't wash with me. Regardless as to who regulated them and when, this fact doesn't dissolve them of their legal liability NOT to lie or mislead people in the course of making a contract with their customers.

I complained to HSBC for my pre 2005 premiums, surprise surprise, their investigations department couldn't uphold my complaint and provided a very detailed letter as to why they were in the right and I was wrong.

I then complained to the Financial Ombudsman service, and a few weeks later, they replied in writing stating that HSBC had now changed their mind and decided to refund me all my pre 2005 premiums plus 8% statutory interest. The FOS had given them 4 weeks to pay me. No monies arrived after 4 weeks so I went back to the FOS who then tried to brush me away with the usual, not in our remit, before we regulated blar blar... I challenged their stance quoting their 'fairness' remit which has no time limits. Two days later they contacted me again to say they have been back in touch with HSBC and they are sorting my refund out that day.

1 week later £200+ deposited into my bank account from HSBC, followed by a letter saying how sorry they were and they considered the matter now closed !.

Two things I take away from this saga.

1) Don't let the banks fob you off, just like the CPI scandal, they know they haven't a leg to stand on but as usual they will do everything to get away with not paying you back YOUR money. They know they will lose a county court case and I threatened to start a small claims case against them.

2) Don't be afraid to stand up to The Financial Ombudsman Service. They are paid a lot of money to do a job and they need to be challenged when you genuinely believe you are right and they are wrong. Maybe they are following the 'rules' but another part of their remit is to ensure customer are and have been treated fairly both now and in the past.

GOOD LUCK !!!!

[Deleted User]

paramount23 wrote: »

Don't be afraid to stand up to The Financial Ombudsman Service. They are paid a lot of money to do a job and they need to be challenged when you genuinely believe you are right and they are wrong.

Unfortunately, you were aiming your ire at the wrong organisation. If HSBC elected to pay you redress only a few weeks after you referred your case to FOS then they will have done this to avoid paying the £800 Ombudsman fee. In other words, it was cheaper to pay you £200 whether you were actually mis-sold or not.

Since FOS did not actually instruct HSBC to pay, it was entirely up to the Bank to send your redress in a timely manner. Your calls to FOS were therefore futile.

In addition, court cases brought against the Banks do not generally go in the customer's favour unless there is compelling evidence to support the complaint. It's also expensive if the other side's costs are awarded. HSBC will not have been in any way phased by your threat of court action.

Regardless, well done on getting the payout.

addedvaluebob

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Unfortunately, you were aiming your ire at the wrong organisation. If HSBC elected to pay you redress only a few weeks after you referred your case to FOS then they will have done this to avoid paying the £800 Ombudsman fee. In other words, it was cheaper to pay you £200 whether you were actually mis-sold or not.

Since FOS did not actually instruct HSBC to pay, it was entirely up to the Bank to send your redress in a timely manner. Your calls to FOS were therefore futile.

In addition, court cases brought against the Banks do not generally go in the customer's favour unless there is compelling evidence to support the complaint. It's also expensive if the other side's costs are awarded. HSBC will not have been in any way phased by your threat of court action.

Regardless, well done on getting the payout.

What a completely misleading post.

The matter was referred to FOS and they, not HSBC wrote to the OP saying HSBC should pay. Therefore the matter was apparently clear cut from the adjudicators point of view and it is just as likely that the original complaint rebuttal was fundamentally flawed making it an easy case for the adjudicator to close as part of their production target. As FOS became involved the case fee will have been payable by HSBC . From the case as outlined by the OP clearly there was a benefit in making 'futile calls' to the adjudicator.

I have seen no evidence posted to suggest that courts cases 'do not generally go in the customers favour' experience points to banks folding when faced with the small claims court and even if the consumer loses, as long as it is in the small claims there are no costs awarded so it is disingenuous to suggest to people this could happen.

Well done to the OP

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The matter was referred to FOS and they, not HSBC wrote to the OP saying HSBC should pay.

No, the circumstances were as follows;

paramount23 wrote:

they replied in writing stating that HSBC had now changed their mind

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Therefore the matter was apparently clear cut from the adjudicators point of view and it is just as likely that the original complaint rebuttal was fundamentally flawed making it an easy case for the adjudicator to close as part of their production target. As FOS became involved the case fee will have been payable by HSBC . From the case as outlined by the OP clearly there was a benefit in making 'futile calls' to the adjudicator.

If the case was dealt with within a few weeks (as the poster concerned said) then FOS will not have had any adjudicator even looking at the complaint.
As I said, the Bank were given the option to pay the customer without incurring the FOS fee. As FOS did not instruct the Bank to pay (but merely gave the Bank the option to), no FOS adjudicator was involved. This is the reason paramount23 says that FOS initially said they could do nothing to hurry the Bank ;

paramount23 wrote:

I went back to the FOS who then tried to brush me away with the usual, not in our remit, before we regulated…

Clearly FOS did contact the Bank to ascertain when payment would be made, but FOS could in no way force the issue.

The Bank paid out to avoid the FOS fee and will have written the OP a "full and final" letter that carefully avoids accepting any liability for mis-selling.



Paramount 23 was correct to take his complaint to FOS, but his conclusions about his experience are flawed.

As for threatening court action, the Banks are not phased by idle threats and it can be a costly experience for the customer.