American Express PPI Claim

magpiecottage

CHEROKEE_CHARLIE wrote: »

I recently received a letter from Richard Thompson
(Principal Ombudsman) stating that he just wanted to get in touch
to let me know that they had not forgotten about my claim and they
would let me know in the coming months what they think about my complaint. Don't know what that means since the claim was upheld in November 2013. Also he stated he had written to me before, not true,this was the first written communication I've had since the claim was upheld.

A CLAIM is what you make if you suffer a misfortune a policy covers. You make that to the insurer.

From what you say, it seems that you instead went to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

what a farce!!!

It is indeed a farce if, having suffered an insured misfortune, a policyholder goes to FOS rather than the insurer to claim on the policy.


If, on the other hand, you mean you COMPLAINED about the policy, then on going to the Financial Ombudsman Service, an adjudicator will take a view, which the complainant and/or the respondent (the firm the complaint is against) may or may not agree with.

If they do not agree then either can ask for an Ombudsman to decide. If FOS receives acceptance of the decision of an Ombudsman from the complainant within a deadline specified in the decision, it is legally binding on both sides.

This is explained clearly in the booklet Your Complaint and the Ombudsman, which would have been provided to you by Amex in its final response to your complaint, if not before.

what a farce!!!

Again, it is a farce that people complain because they do not understand a process that is quite clear if they take a little time to read the explanatory booklet.

CHEROKEE_CHARLIE

I originally complained to AMEX about the mis selling of the PPI policy
connected with the credit card, to which they dismissed my complaint.
It was at this point I contacted the FOS to look into my complaint which
was upheld by an adjudicator as explained in an earlier post. Amex have
already agreed with the FOS decision.
I have read the booklet ''Your complaint and the Ombudsman" and indeed
know very well how the process works!!!
The reason I made the comment "what a farce" is because of the timescales involved since the complaint was upheld, (18 months without a conclusion and the complaint has been ongoing for almost 3 years) and also the severe lack of communication from the FOS.

Nasqueron

CHEROKEE_CHARLIE wrote: »

I originally complained to AMEX about the mis selling of the PPI policy
connected with the credit card, to which they dismissed my complaint.
It was at this point I contacted the FOS to look into my complaint which
was upheld by an adjudicator as explained in an earlier post. Amex have
already agreed with the FOS decision.
I have read the booklet ''Your complaint and the Ombudsman" and indeed
know very well how the process works!!!
The reason I made the comment "what a farce" is because of the timescales involved since the complaint was upheld, (18 months without a conclusion and the complaint has been ongoing for almost 3 years) and also the severe lack of communication from the FOS.

The FOS is massively overwhelmed with PPI complaints as every case, no matter how weak and obviously not miss-sold can be referred to them and CMCs will refer any rejection automatically to try and get their cut.

I seem to remember a significant number of FOS referall cases have no PPI at all!

Alpine_Star

Nasqueron wrote: »

The FOS is massively overwhelmed with PPI complaints as every case, no matter how weak and obviously not miss-sold can be referred to them and CMCs will refer any rejection automatically to try and get their cut.

This is factually incorrect.


The % of PPI complaints that FOS have upheld year by year are:


2011 - 66%
2012 - 82%
2013 - 65%
2014 - 65%


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar14/dealt.html#a5


The only conclusion you can draw from this is that the main reason FOS are overwhelmed is because most complainants were mis-sold PPI and their complaints were wrongly rejected by the seller.

Nasqueron

Alpine_Star wrote: »

This is factually incorrect.


The % of PPI complaints that FOS have upheld year by year are:


2011 - 66%
2012 - 82%
2013 - 65%
2014 - 65%


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ar14/dealt.html#a5


The only conclusion you can draw from this is that the main reason FOS are overwhelmed is because most complainants were mis-sold PPI and their complaints were wrongly rejected by the seller.

It's not factually incorrect, you have chosen to interpret what I wrote other than the way I wrote it. I never said anything about how many were dubious, just that every case, no matter how weak, can be referred. In fact, your data actually shows I am correct in that 35% approx of cases in 3/4 years were judged to be wrong, meaning the 65% of valid cases are held up as the FOS has to deal with invalid cases. I wonder if you have any stats on how many cases the FOS gets referred where no PPI was present?

Marty_Hopkirk

My experience of dealings with the FOS, were they were exemplary in every respect. Every time I contacted them they were clear and honest about where my case was and explained why it had taken so long. My case was in with a number of cases being treated as a test case against Yorkshire/Clydesdale and may have been one of cases that resulted in the large fine they received recently.

Marty... (The artist that was formerly HAL_9000)

Marty_Hopkirk

Another good experience of the FOS, was when I was chasing PPI on a loan for double glazing sold by Safestyle. I got the most ridiculous rejection letter from Safestyle, basically the reason they rejected my claim was they thought it was unfair to take up a claim from so long ago (at the time of the compliant it was 8 years since the loan was taken out and it was paid off a year previous). Anyway off to FOS I went, a few days l received a phone call from the FOS, saying I might be better and quicker going to under writer direct which they gave me the details. Off I went with standard template form and two weeks later I received a letter from the under writer with an offer of £535, which I accepted. I know it was probably an auto pay out and it's Safestyle that should have coughed up but I wasn't about to start complaining.

I think that is a pretty good service from the FOS.

Marty... (The artist that was formerly HAL_9000)

Alpine_Star

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's not factually incorrect, you have chosen to interpret what I wrote other than the way I wrote it. I never said anything about how many were dubious, just that every case, no matter how weak, can be referred. In fact, your data actually shows I am correct in that 35% approx of cases in 3/4 years were judged to be wrong, meaning the 65% of valid cases are held up as the FOS has to deal with invalid cases. I wonder if you have any stats on how many cases the FOS gets referred where no PPI was present?

Yes it's a ''small proportion'' (see below) and certainly under 5%, at least those are the stats for 2011/2012 which was a record year for PPI complaint volumes.


So hardly a ''significant number''.


''The volume of cases that we see where we establish that there was no PPI policy (and hence where we dismiss the case and don’t charge the financial services business) is relatively small—in 2011/12 it was 5,667 cases out of 117,806 we resolved in PPI. So it seems that only a small proportion of the cases that banks identify in this category are referred on to us—presumably because the consumer, or claims manager, is satisfied that the firm has made adequate searches of its records to establish the facts.''


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201314/jtselect/jtpcbs/27/27ix_we_j11.htm

maggyp

I didn't get a reply from Dooney, did I expect one no.

My complaint was upheld by the Ombudsman. The problem appears to be that Amex are sticking their heels in and do not appear to be providing the FOS with their calculations or examples of how they work the ppi repayments out.

I agree with Cherokee Charlie it is a bit of a farce as nothing seems to have happened since last June. My complaints has been ongoing for nearly 3 years, and the message I get from the FOS has never changed so I am beinging to think that the FOS has no clout at all.

I must add that whoever I speak to is always very polite and helpful but they are begining to sound like a stuck record.

Nasqueron

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Yes it's a ''small proportion'' (see below) and certainly under 5%, at least those are the stats for 2011/2012 which was a record year for PPI complaint volumes.


So hardly a ''significant number''.


''The volume of cases that we see where we establish that there was no PPI policy (and hence where we dismiss the case and don’t charge the financial services business) is relatively small—in 2011/12 it was 5,667 cases out of 117,806 we resolved in PPI. So it seems that only a small proportion of the cases that banks identify in this category are referred on to us—presumably because the consumer, or claims manager, is satisfied that the firm has made adequate searches of its records to establish the facts.''


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt201314/jtselect/jtpcbs/27/27ix_we_j11.htm

It's still 5667 cases delaying other people's cases because a person never paid PPI yet demanded money back!

Can argue the toss over the 65% that were overturned - I wonder how many of those were the bank paying out to avoid the FOS fee even with merit-less cases