PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

PeterJohnson

I have received my letter today from Lloyds to tell me they are investigating my concern about the way PPI was sold. I hope this is a standard letter as I am more than 'concerned' no mention of 'mis-selling' either

di3004

ellmae wrote: »

Just had a letter from capital one saying they need another 4 weeks to look into my complaint .

Good luck ellmae, fingers crossed.;)

di3004

ellmae wrote: »

Does anyone know how long it takes to get your cheque from santandar after you have recieved your offer letter

I have not had any dealings with these myself, but with Lloyds it was 21 days after them receiving my signed acceptances.
Good luck with yours x;)

di3004

kerinat wrote: »

:money::jI completed one of your PPI claim forms. I now have now had compensation for £1,491.64.

Thank you so much

Keep up the brilliant work

Well done to you!:T:j & Congratulations!:beer:

di3004

PeterJohnson wrote: »

I have received my letter today from Lloyds to tell me they are investigating my concern about the way PPI was sold. I hope this is a standard letter as I am more than 'concerned' no mention of 'mis-selling' either

Hiya Peter

Yes that is a standard letter.
Fingers crossed on your reclaiming.;)

smitchy73

BlythBoy wrote: »

Basically, as the only reason my claim was rejected by Santander was that it took place before the 2005 cut off date and that there is at least one claim been rewarded from 1997 with the same reasons for mis-selling they have set the president and will find it hard to justify selective awarding of claims. I am going to ask the FOS to again ask Santander to justify the selective manner of awarding claims when the reasons for mis-selling are the same.

This is from the FSA handbook guidance, maybe you should right back to them and quote them this part of it and ask them to refer to this and re-look at your complaint.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

3.10 Application: evidential provisions

[/FONT]

3.10.1 E The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]evidential provisions [/FONT]in this appendix apply in relation to [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaints [/FONT]about
sales that took place on or after 14 January 2005.
3.10.2 G For [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaints [/FONT]about sales that took place prior to 14 January 2005, a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm

[/FONT]

should take account of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]evidential provisions [/FONT]in this appendix as if they were

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

guidance[/FONT].
3.10.3 E Contravention of an [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]evidential provision [/FONT]in this appendix may be relied upon as

tending to establish contravention of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]DISP [/FONT]1.4.1R.

h0pusp0pus

di3004 wrote: »

With them being a bank (Santander) even though Store card wonder if your still regulated though?
So your still waiting for your docs from the HMRC then I take it?
If they do that to you and tell you after all you have done by contacting the HMRC, then I would then make a separate complaint on the way you have been unfairly treated, that would make the muppets think x

hi di

yes still waiting to hear from hmrc im hoping i should hear next week with a bit of luck other wise ill have to chase them up again i quite agree if they do turn around and say that they have totaly wasted my time and effort so im hopinh once i get the proof of not paying national insurance then they will make me an offer, and im not sure if it would be covered as being under the ownership of santander bank now

di3004

h0pusp0pus wrote: »

hi di

yes still waiting to hear from hmrc im hoping i should hear next week with a bit of luck other wise ill have to chase them up again i quite agree if they do turn around and say that they have totaly wasted my time and effort so im hopinh once i get the proof of not paying national insurance then they will make me an offer, and im not sure if it would be covered as being under the ownership of santander bank now

Hiya
The annoying thing is here, is that they then would be wasting your time as well, because they should have already mentioned that, but they did not make a point of this, and only that of you providing some details.
I will be so annoyed if they let you down now, as a goodwill they can still deal with this, regulated or not. X;)

smitchy73

BlythBoy wrote: »

Basically, as the only reason my claim was rejected by Santander was that it took place before the 2005 cut off date and that there is at least one claim been rewarded from 1997 with the same reasons for mis-selling they have set the president and will find it hard to justify selective awarding of claims. I am going to ask the FOS to again ask Santander to justify the selective manner of awarding claims when the reasons for mis-selling are the same.

Something further from the FSA handbook. PS10/12 FSA Guidance Section 2(C)

c) Our approach to PPI sales made before we regulated general

insurance mediation (i.e. before 14 January 200525)

Time barring and pre-2005 sales
Some firms argued that complaints about pre-2005 sales should not be included in the
scope of our Handbook provisions because they are all or mostly already out of time to be
considered on their merits (i.e. they are ‘time barred’ under our existing DISP rules).33

We disagree with this view. Decisions concerning the time barring of individual
complaints are ultimately for the FOS to make, but in general terms, our view (as set
out in CP10/6 para 3.14), is that general media coverage of the PPI issue, including
comments or publications by us, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind
of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ required by DISP’s time limits.34

Accordingly, while some consumers who bought PPI before January 2005 may, on an
assessment of their individual circumstances and events, be deemed to have had appropriate
awareness before January 2008, such that they will be out of time by January 2011, our
view is that this is unlikely to apply to consumers generally (though that is ultimately a
decision for the FOS to make concerning complaints referred to it).
Conclusion on pre-2005 sales
There is nothing in firms’ responses which leads us to consider it necessary to retract
from our statement in the open letter concerning pre-2005 sales or to carve out
complaints about these sales from the scope of our final provisions. To do either would
leave substantially unaddressed the poor handling of a very significant proportion of PPI
complaints, and thus the significant potential consumer detriment caused by many of

these sales.

h0pusp0pus

offcumden wrote: »

are santander giving me the run around
Yes
they told me that it was a bread winner policy so my partner if i had one would of been able to claim even if i was a full time student at the time of taking the card out!
If you didn't have a partner the policy must have been missold
Did you have a partner
were they named on the form?
Can either you or they or santander prove that you did or not
they said if they are to investigate more they would need proof that i wasnt paying national insurance payments back (waiting to hear back my hm revenue and customs regards this) because i was a full time student,
Why what relevance does this have? They accepted at the time you were a fulltime student
The banks will have been inundated with claims not all of them genuine
They are on a damage limitation exercise to keep payouts to a minimum.
They know they are guilty of misselling the provisions they have made prove that.

hi thanks for your reply no i didnt have a partner at the time and it was my name only on the paper work lol i dont think there is any possible way to prove i was or was not single apart from perhaps ill send them my old college photo id lol (i was a ugly duckling sniff sniff pmsl)

the silly thing is they gave me four weeks to send proof about no national insurance payments being made in 1996 but i rang hm revenue and they said it will take longer than 4 weeks!! (still waiting to hear from them) i phoned santander the other day for an update and she didnt half sound ditzy i sent them copies of all my college certificates that were dated to prove i was a full time student i asked if she had got them and she said oh yes i can look at them today if you would like me to?? well what on earth has she been doing in the mean time! lol anyways it went past the four week dealine they gave me so i asked if my case was closed and she said oh no dont worry its still open?? confused?? i am lol