the ombudsman - what does it rule on exactly?

miktek

Hi there.

I had to use a PPI claim company as I got nowhere with GE money who had sold the loan/liability onto Santander.
I sent my documents into the claim company and they confirmed that I had indeed been missold, and that there was PPI on the account.

All went quiet for 4 months, so I asked the claim company for an update. They said the case had been referred to the ombudsman, as Santander had disputed it and that it make take 18 months for a result.

Fast forward to today, I get an email from another person at the claim company saying my claim has now been rejected because 'they' (unclear if it was Santander/ombudsman who stated this) say that there was no PPI on the account, which is an outright lie as I gave the claim company concrete proof of this, in the form of a monthly statement. I was asked to provide proof of the PPI if I wanted to appeal it, and the person at the PPI claim company gave their own view that they didn't believe the opinion given.

So, my question is this really:
What is the exact purpose of the ombudsman? Do they simply say if PPI was/was not mis-sold, or do they have a say in what is/isn't PPI, which, if I may add, the PPI claim company stated mine is 100%.

A bit strange, I think.

thanks!

WatchMan

miktek wrote: »

Hi there.

I had to use a PPI claim company as I got nowhere with GE money who had sold the loan/liability onto Santander.
I sent my documents into the claim company and they confirmed that I had indeed been missold, and that there was PPI on the account.

All went quiet for 4 months, so I asked the claim company for an update. They said the case had been referred to the ombudsman, as Santander had disputed it and that it make take 18 months for a result.

Fast forward to today, I get an email from another person at the claim company saying my claim has now been rejected because 'they' (unclear if it was Santander/ombudsman who stated this) say that there was no PPI on the account, which is an outright lie as I gave the claim company concrete proof of this, in the form of a monthly statement. I was asked to provide proof of the PPI if I wanted to appeal it, and the person at the PPI claim company gave their own view that they didn't believe the opinion given.

So, my question is this really:
What is the exact purpose of the ombudsman? Do they simply say if PPI was/was not mis-sold, or do they have a say in what is/isn't PPI, which, if I may add, the PPI claim company stated mine is 100%.

A bit strange, I think.

thanks!

The Ombudsman do both. They will look at a complaint and come to a decision as to whether they think PPI was mis-sold. They can also look into whether PPI was sold at all if the issue is raised.

The PPI claim company you are using doesn't really have any standing. Whether they say you were mis-sold is neither here nor there.

From what you have said, it sounds like Santander have said there was no PPI on the account and it is the ombudsman who has agreed with them.

If I were you, I would check this with your claims company - and if you do have proof that PPI was on the account, ask them to pass this on so that your complaint can be reconsidered.

[Deleted User]

miktek wrote: »

I sent my documents into the claim company and they confirmed that I had indeed been missold, and that there was PPI on the account.

The Claim Company cannot determine whether or not you were mis-sold. They will generally forward any complaint -that's how they earn their money.

miktek wrote: »

my claim has now been rejected because 'they' (unclear if it was Santander/ombudsman who stated this) say that there was no PPI on the account, which is an outright lie as I gave the claim company concrete proof of this, in the form of a monthly statement. I was asked to provide proof of the PPI if I wanted to appeal it

If you had simply provided this proof with your original complaint instead of sending it to the CMC all of this could have been avoided. However, are you sure that this statement actually shows a PPI payment? Could it be something else? If this was a mortgage, it's possible the payment was for life or critical illness insurance for example. Neither of these are PPI.

miktek wrote: »

What is the exact purpose of the ombudsman? Do they simply say if PPI was/was not mis-sold, or do they have a say in what is/isn't PPI

The Ombudsman is there to arbitrate in disputes between customers and financial institutions, but they can only act on the evidence presented to them. Clearly, the evidence from the Bank has convinced them that there was no PPI.

miktek wrote: »

A bit strange

Not really, you seem to believe the CMC (who you are employing) are somehow more knowledgeable about this than FOS who have all the evidence from both sides in front of them.

Your mistake was to employ their "services" at all because they do nothing you could not have done yourself and for free.

miktek

Hi, thanks for the replies.

I was getting seriously fobbed off by GE Money, then Santander who took the opinion that they were not liable for any claim. Yes, to some it may look like a 'mistake' going to a CMC, but I wasn't willing to spend more time banging my head against a wall, and yes, I suppose I could have gone to the ombudsman myself. Thanks for explaining to me that what the ombudsman can rule on.

When I say the account had payment protection insurance, I don't think it could be any clearer that's what it was. It was a B and Q storecard that was provided by GE Money and every monthly statement had an amount added to the balance under the description 'Payment Protection'. It was the type you would use if you lost your job and couldn't pay etc, nothing to do with critical illness/life insurance.

The CMC agreed with me that it was PPI, Santander agreed that it was PPI, but they refused to pay back monies as they didn't believe it was mis-sold. That I could deal with, but now the CMC has got back to me and now the reason for the case being 'thrown out' is because 'there wasn't any PPI on the account'. That's what I find to be the strange part. The email back from the CMC is a bit vague, to say the least. Here is the text:

Just a quick email to confirm that I have heard back from the above and they have confirmed that there was no PPI on the account.

Not that I do not trust this outcome, but if you have anything to disprove this then please forward it to me and I can appeal.

The 'above' doesn't refer to anyone in particular, but the email title is 'Santander Store Card'

Does that sound like a person who doesn't trust the ombudsman (bizzare) or a person who doesn't trust the store card provider. I have emailed them back to tell them they ALREADY have the proof of the PPI on the account.
I really appreciate the opinions on this. thanks.

[Deleted User]

miktek wrote: »

Yes, to some it may look like a 'mistake' going to a CMC

To "some"? No, to everyone who doesn't want to pay an exorbitant fee for something that can be done alone and for free.

miktek wrote: »

but I wasn't willing to spend more time banging my head against a wall

But that appears to be exactly what you have continued to do! The only difference now is that you will now pay this firm a large proportion of any redress you may eventually win.

miktek wrote: »

When I say the account had payment protection insurance, I don't think it could be any clearer that's what it was. It was a B and Q storecard that was provided by GE Money and every monthly statement had an amount added to the balance under the description 'Payment Protection'. It was the type you would use if you lost your job and couldn't pay etc, nothing to do with critical illness/life insurance.

If you had complained directly and sent your evidence to the Bank instead of to your CMC then your complaint would not now be awaiting appeal!

miktek wrote: »

The CMC agreed with me that it was PPI

As stated previously, this is not proof of anything. The CMC will send almost any complaint.

miktek wrote: »

Santander agreed that it was PPI, but they refused to pay back monies as they didn't believe it was mis-sold. That I could deal with, but now the CMC has got back to me and now the reason for the case being 'thrown out' is because 'there wasn't any PPI on the account'.

So this just sounds like your CMC haven't forwarded the evidence you sent them!

miktek wrote: »

Does that sound like a person who doesn't trust the ombudsman (bizzare) or a person who doesn't trust the store card provider.

No, the person writing the E-Mail says "Not that I do not trust this outcome" which indicates he does trust the outcome and obviously hasn't any clue that you've already sent the evidence. He should already know you have this evidence as you sent it to them in the first place!

The whole debacle sounds like the fault of the CMC which has singularly failed to properly represent you. To make matters worse, if you do eventually get a favourable outcome, you'll still have to pay them.

Instruct the CMC to send copies of both Santander's rejection letter and your documentary evidence to FOS.

miktek

thanks.

yes, it does appear, at least, that the CMC haven't done their job properly, and I can tell you aren't a fan of them, but I weighed up my options, and the fact that the PPI only amounted to around £500 made me just 'go for it'.
If i'm being honest, I am of the opinion that the CMC have looked at the 'value' of the PPI claim and not really put any effort into this (kind of like me, haha!).
I will be asking them for proof that the case has indeed been sent to the FSO, and that the vague 'ruling' I was given did come from them.

I'm open minded enough to all possibilities on whats really going on here, but would dread to think that the CMC has not bothered to forward on any monies that might have been awarded if indeed the case was upheld.

Thanks again for the reply

[Deleted User]

miktek wrote: »

I'm open minded enough to all possibilities on whats really going on here, but would dread to think that the CMC has not bothered to forward on any monies that might have been awarded if indeed the case was upheld.

Since any redress (should it be awarded) would be sent directly to you then this is not even a remote possibility. The CMC will invoice you their bill if you are at any time successful.

WatchMan

miktek wrote: »

Thanks again for the reply

I think it was bad form for the CMC to be as vague as they were.

Try and get to the bottom of this with them. If you don't get anywhere, you can call the FOS direct and find out whether the complaint got to them, what has happened to it and what your next steps would be.

-taff

Well, I enjoyed the farce from the CMC anyway.

Your storecard wasn't regulated. Santander are taking no responsibility for the sale, as they didn't sell it.
GE Money weren't responsible either because they weren't regulated.
You have no access to the Ombudsman because it was pre-regulation.


What you should have done was not used a company, complained to Santander, and then complained to the insurer of the card, probably Genworth, wh are also not responsible for the sale of the PPI but may, and I stress, MAY, have accepted responsibility.

Next time, do some research before deciding a piddly 500 was worthy of palming off on someone else, especially as the CMC might well bill you fo the 'work' they have done, which is not an impossibility.

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

Your storecard wasn't regulated. Santander are taking no responsibility for the sale, as they didn't sell it.
GE Money weren't responsible either because they weren't regulated.
You have no access to the Ombudsman because it was pre-regulation.

Ah, didn't spot the possibility that both complaints referred to were for one and the same PPI policy.

Yes, the OP has wasted his time complaining to the wrong people and using a CMC has simply compounded the errors made...