We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Can I reclaim ppi costs from barclaycard
GFUNK20
Posts: 7 Forumite
Hi I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but here goes barclaycard originally formally rejected two PPI claims. I admit I should have gone to the FOS myself but hey I didn't
I was later contacted by curly wig who took on the case and barclaycard again rejected their claim. So curly wig took it to the FOS and low and behold the FOS overturned barclaycards decision great!
My query is if barclaycard should have paid up in the first place which has now been proved, I wouldn't have used curly wig at 25% + V.A.T
I don't begrudge CW fees but has anyone successfully claimed this further cost back? Or is it a non runner?
I was later contacted by curly wig who took on the case and barclaycard again rejected their claim. So curly wig took it to the FOS and low and behold the FOS overturned barclaycards decision great!
My query is if barclaycard should have paid up in the first place which has now been proved, I wouldn't have used curly wig at 25% + V.A.T
I don't begrudge CW fees but has anyone successfully claimed this further cost back? Or is it a non runner?
0
Comments
-
Non-runner.
You could have gone to the FOS as you say.Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
Do you really believe any Bank would pay your Claim Company fees in the circumstance you describe?So curly wig took it to the FOS and low and behold the FOS overturned barclaycards decision great!
My query is if barclaycard should have paid up in the first place which has now been proved, I wouldn't have used curly wig at 25% + V.A.T
The whole complaint process is free to customers, it was your choice (and yours alone) to use a CMC and the brutal truth is that they did nothing you could not have done alone and for free.
I certainly would, they did nothing more than put a stamp on the envelope containing your complaint.I don't begrudge CW fees0 -
I understand your sarcasm but the fact remains it was ruled as an unlawful sale and in any other type of unlawful ruling additional costs can be reclaimed I followed the company complaints procedure twice and they failed to acknowledge this.
I appreciate it won't go anywhere but food for thought surely!Moneyineptitude wrote: »Do you really believe any Bank would pay your Claim Company fees in the circumstance you describe?
The whole complaint process is free to customers, it was your choice (and yours alone) to use a CMC and the brutal truth is that they did nothing you could not have done alone and for free.
I certainly would, they did nothing more than put a stamp on the envelope containing your complaint.0 -
I understand your sarcasm but the fact remains it was ruled as an unlawful sale and in any other type of unlawful ruling additional costs can be reclaimed I followed the company complaints procedure twice and they failed to acknowledge this.
I appreciate it won't go anywhere but food for thought surely!
But you still didn't need to use a CMC for your complaint, you could have gone to the FOS for free. It was your choice to use the CMC, no-one elses.0 -
Since PPI mis-selling is not a legal issue, in what way was the sale "unlawful"? The sale was deemed to have simply broken the regulatory rules. No court case.I understand your sarcasm but the fact remains it was ruled as an unlawful sale
Your "additional costs" were incurred purely by your own decision to use a Claims Management Company. Since you would have been just as successful by acting alone, your costs are down to you alone.0 -
The ruling that ppi had been mis sold was argued IN COURT for nearly a year before the FOS could begin ordering the banks to pay back ppi
(Which the banks contested and lost)
That says illegal to me...
The FOS only decide wether the banks ruling is correct or not, they don't have the power dictate how much over and above should be repaid.
I've just been searching BBCs website and it seems that people are pursuing additional costs through court.Moneyineptitude wrote: »Since PPI mis-selling is not a legal issue, in what way was the sale "unlawful"? The sale was deemed to have simply broken the regulatory rules. No court case.
Your "additional costs" were incurred purely by your own decision to use a Claims Management Company. Since you would have been just as successful by acting alone, your costs are down to you alone.0 -
Nothing illegal about PPI mis-selling. If I were you I'd read more about the court case and what it was the Banks wanted a ruling on. The regulator wanted to apply new rules on past sales, that was what the Banks didn't agree with (and lost).That says illegal to me...
PPI redress is defined as a full refund of all PPI paid, plus attendant interest, plus 8% simple interest. No other "costs" are considered (or paid). It is not negotiable.The FOS only decide wether the banks ruling is correct or not, they don't have the power dictate how much over and above should be repaid.
Good luck if you decide to take your case to court. You'd definitely lose and would probably have costs awarded against you.I've just been searching BBCs website and it seems that people are pursuing additional costs through court.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards