PPI Reclaiming discussion

m.colak

LISAW wrote: »

sorry, and the 2 weeks is after/if fos decide to take on the case. this as you say will take considerably longer.

When i spoke to the FOS recently they told me that complaints were currently taking 6 months to clear and in some cases 9 months. All case's are dealt in a date order and there is no skipping the queue.

LISAW_2

tiggrae wrote: »

I think the FOS was only set up after 2001, so pre this time no one came under their jurisidiction therefore, the FOS have no right to investigate

thanks for the info tiggrae, but surely this was governed before 2001? if not then the 6 year rule would have been no use to people last year as it would predate? man, im glad this isnt my job!

LISAW_2

m.colak wrote: »

When i spoke to the FOS recently they told me that complaints were currently taking 6 months to clear and in some cases 9 months. All case's are dealt in a date order and there is no skipping the queue.

they told me that too, however, my case has been moved to a different queue . so i'm not jumping, more side stepping.

Kaia_2

m.colak wrote: »

Stop request immediately a copy of the customer credit agreement with lloyds if they can't provide then immediately go to the information commisioner. You can request the repayment in anyway you wish its your terms not theirs.

Is this the same as the data protection thing where you ask for details and send off £10?

tiggrae

daynurse wrote: »

is that legal tiggrae??

T

the FSA believe this to be unfair under the consumer contract terms regulations 1999 - THIS IS A VITAL DOCUMENT AND SHOULD BE USED IN ALL INSTANCES OF RECLAIMS AGAINST SINGLE PREMIUM PAYMENT PROTECTION

Refunds of Single Premium Payment Protection Insurance

Also the company under Contract Law has a Duty of Disclosure, to tell your of this - see previous post where I used GTs wording to try to explain it or contracts of good faith

tiggrae

LISAW wrote: »

thanks for the info tiggrae, but surely this was governed before 2001? if not then the 6 year rule would have been no use to people last year as it would predate? man, im glad this isnt my job!

there was no real regulation and what there was has now ceased to exist, therefore, the only route left open to people who can't use the services of the FOS is the County Courts - the FOS was really only set up to take up complaints where people didn't want to go down the courts route (ie to attempt to broker settlement without the need to go to court)

LISAW_2

tiggrae wrote: »

there was no real regulation and what there was has now ceased to exist, therefore, the only route left open to people who can't use the services of the FOS is the County Courts - the FOS was really only set up to take up complaints where people didn't want to go down the courts route (ie to attempt to broker settlement without the need to go to court)

thanks. that i what i am desperately trying to do. it seems that because ltsb are aware it could be a grey area, they are attacking it. do you know what the chances are of the fos taking this case on ( only reasonably aware in the last 3 years ) i have mentioned media coverage thanks to martin

tiggrae

BigCraigJohn wrote: »

Its a fob off. Send a second letter.

This is what the FSA had to say in failure of good practice regarding PPI - look specifically at item 4 - if egg say you had the documentation the FSA has stated firms gave over reliance upon product documentation - nearly everyone will have suffered from one or more of the following failures !!! ALWAYS USE WHAT THE FSA HAVE TO SAY THEY ARE THE AUTHORITY - EGG CAN'T ARGUE WITH THEIR OWN REGULATOR !!!!

· There was a risk of inappropriate sales: around half of the firms failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that customers did not buy policies on which they could not claim or which provided only very limited cover;
· There were inadequate controls in place for non-advised sales: about half of the firms selling on a non-advised basis did not have adequate systems to stop their staff giving advice or were providing information that amounted to giving advice;
· Advice on PPI was often likely to be poor: most firms did not have systems in place to assess suitability adequately;
· There was an over-reliance on product documentation given to the customer at the expense of explaining the policy to the customer orally: most firms selling by telephone did not give sufficient information on exclusions;
· The quality and timeliness of product and price disclosure by some firms selling single premium policies was poor;
· The level and structure of inducements and targets for sales staff could encourage mis-selling in some firms; and
· Training and competence of sales staff was not adequate in around half of firms;
· Compliance monitoring was variable and in some cases very poor.

tiggrae

LISAW wrote: »

thanks. that i what i am desperately trying to do. it seems that because ltsb are aware it could be a grey area, they are attacking it. do you know what the chances are of the fos taking this case on ( only reasonably aware in the last 3 years ) i have mentioned media coverage thanks to martin

they have to stick to their own regulations regarding their powers - ring them up and ask whether LLoyds TSB came under their jurisdiction at the time of the sale - they're really VERY helpful and will be able to tell you straight away then at least you'll know for sure

Mollsmum

Hi guys
Hope you can help, OH took out a car loan in 2005 and the garage added on PPI which we didn't notice at the time.
Anyway OH works abroad so the policy was invalid from the offset, we have sent 2 letters to LTSB and both times they have said that they have contacted the garage and the garage would be in contact with us.
Needless to say we have heard nothing and now i'm not sure what to do next.
Thanks.