American Express PPI Claim

Alpine_Star

Nasqueron wrote: »

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

That would be zero.


Think about it.

maggyp

I wrote to the FSO again asking for an update again as nothing seems to have changed.


On Friday I received a telephone call from them telling me exactly what they tell me when I call them, and ironically the call was made by the same dept. that I call.


So after nearly 3 years nothing has changed and the tel. call from them was simply a P.R exercise.


I have in the past had great service from them and everyone is so pleasant when I tel but for goodness sake is anything happening to put pressure on American Express.

Nasqueron

Alpine_Star wrote: »

That would be zero.


Think about it.

Depends how you meant the statistic - a rejection by the bank that goes to the FOS and the bank auto-pays when given the opportunity to avoid the FOS fee - does that count as an overturn or not? Or do those figures exclude that option and only include those where the FOS judges the case and then sides with the customer (with their notorious customer bias and unwillingness to accept the idea of customers and CMCs lying)?

Alpine_Star

Nasqueron wrote: »

Depends how you meant the statistic - a rejection by the bank that goes to the FOS and the bank auto-pays when given the opportunity to avoid the FOS fee - does that count as an overturn or not? Or do those figures exclude that option and only include those where the FOS judges the case and then sides with the customer (with their notorious customer bias and unwillingness to accept the idea of customers and CMCs lying)?

I don't know where you're trying to go with this. The evidence FOS submitted to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in the link I provided couldn't be clearer. Try reading it.


FOS fees apply to all rejections by the bank that go to FOS except where FOS is satisfied that no policy existed. There is no 'option' for the bank to compensate the consumer to avoid the fee.

Nasqueron

Alpine_Star wrote: »

I don't know where you're trying to go with this. The evidence FOS submitted to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards in the link I provided couldn't be clearer. Try reading it.


FOS fees apply to all rejections by the bank that go to FOS except where FOS is satisfied that no policy existed. There is no 'option' for the bank to compensate the consumer to avoid the fee.

Interesting, there were many reports on here from those in the finance industry where the FOS allowed banks to settle direct to help clear the backlog without paying the fee - were those posters mistaken in these reports?

I am not "going" anywhere with this, just pointing out the delay in people getting legitimate issues sorted by the FOS due to the volume of people who are either lying about having PPI or were genuinely not miss-sold but are trying it on

Alpine_Star

Nasqueron wrote: »

I am not "going" anywhere with this, just pointing out the delay in people getting legitimate issues sorted by the FOS due to the volume of people who are either lying about having PPI or were genuinely not miss-sold but are trying it on

magpiecottage

AlpineStar is correct. FOS will charge a fee. The only exceptions are where there never was any PPI in the first place.

Even then it may charge simply to confirm this.

Alpine_Star

magpiecottage wrote: »

AlpineStar is correct. FOS will charge a fee. The only exceptions are where there never was any PPI in the first place.

Even then it may charge simply to confirm this.

Not according to the evidence FOS gave to the commission.


''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...''


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

magpiecottage

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Not according to the evidence FOS gave to the commission.

DunstonH tells of a case where an adviser was charged a fee when no PPI existed.

FOS also say themselves that they will charge if they first investigate to see if a complaint is in their jurisdiction or not - even if they then decide it is not.

This would include such cases.

In addition, FOS deliberately muddies the waters by saying the majority of firms pay no case fees when, in reality, the vast majority of firms are network members with no free cases. FOS simply counts them all as one firm.

CHEROKEE_CHARLIE

maggyp wrote: »

I wrote to the FSO again asking for an update again as nothing seems to have changed.


On Friday I received a telephone call from them telling me exactly what they tell me when I call them, and ironically the call was made by the same dept. that I call.


So after nearly 3 years nothing has changed and the tel. call from them was simply a P.R exercise.


I have in the past had great service from them and everyone is so pleasant when I tel but for goodness sake is anything happening to put pressure on American Express.

I phoned the FOS this afternoon for an update on my claim.
A very pleasant lady told me that AMEX had made an offer, but they
felt the offer didn't reflect the fact that the PPI had been in place
from 1994 to 2012. They have now asked them how they worked out their offer. When I tried to push her on what the actual offer was,
she told me she was unable to access that information on her system. That seemed a bit strange to me.
She did however state that the claim was now being dealt with the top level of Ombudsman.
I then asked her why the Ombudsman could not make a final
decision which would then make it legally binding.
She stated that because AMEX have agreed that the PPI was mis-sold
the FOS had to negotiate the offer that was eventually going to be made to me. That also seemed strange.
She also stated that it appears AMEX are making offers on an individual basis and not using the same process for every upheld PPI claim and the FOS are also looking into that.
As maggyp stated earlier it all seems to be a PR exercise.
It certainly appears that the FOS is like a lion with no teeth and AMEX are giving them the runaround.
As usual they were very pleasant and apologetic.
AMEX certainly need to be brought to book.