Can I reclaim ppi costs from barclaycard

GFUNK20

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?

-taff

Non-runner.
You could have gone to the FOS as you say.

[Deleted User]

GFUNK20 wrote: »

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

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.

GFUNK20 wrote: »

I don't begrudge CW fees

I certainly would, they did nothing more than put a stamp on the envelope containing your complaint.

GFUNK20

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.

meer53

GFUNK20 wrote: »

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.

[Deleted User]

GFUNK20 wrote: »

I understand your sarcasm but the fact remains it was ruled as an unlawful sale

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.

GFUNK20

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.

[Deleted User]

GFUNK20 wrote: »

That says illegal to me...

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).

GFUNK20 wrote: »

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.

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.

GFUNK20 wrote: »

I've just been searching BBCs website and it seems that people are pursuing additional costs through court.

Good luck if you decide to take your case to court. You'd definitely lose and would probably have costs awarded against you.