PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

shar1234

Hi
I had exactly the same letter from Barclays yesterday. They wrote to me in June saying they would respond by 3rd October.

amersall

MARKOS72 wrote: »

Missus has just called me to say letter from Clydesdale rejecting my complaint
Guess its time to try with the Ombudsman.

What were the reasons for not upholding,and was this a loan or a credit card?.

MARKOS72

It was a credit card,not got the letter to hand as I'm at work so will post reasons later on.

klflosser

I sent my acceptance form to RBS on 10th June for PPI on a credit card. I received payment into my bank on Monday 15th August. However this was the amount offered in early May 2011 and they had taken a further 3 PPI payments since then. Just rung RBS and they are going to look into it. I thought the reason they had such a backlog with credit cards was because they have to do recalculations. Obviously I was mistaken.

bhoqoN

Niggly wrote: »

The reason my quote is higher is because the ppi have rolled into each loan. The figs from RBS dont include this. I assume this is what is meant by consolidated interest. We will see.

Hi Niggly,

I noticed that and thought as much. Very exciting and I am so grateful to you and all on the forum. Amazing bunch of people!!!:j

bhoqoN

klflosser wrote: »

I sent my acceptance form to RBS on 10th June for PPI on a credit card. I received payment into my bank on Monday 15th August. However this was the amount offered in early May 2011 and they had taken a further 3 PPI payments since then. Just rung RBS and they are going to look into it. I thought the reason they had such a backlog with credit cards was because they have to do recalculations. Obviously I was mistaken.

Hi klfosser,

Not much hope for me then as they received my acceptance form on 2 August. Now have doubts about the 28 days timescale. Hoping its different for loans. Congratulation on your win. Credit to the MSE team!:j

tifosi

klflosser wrote: »

I sent my acceptance form to RBS on 10th June for PPI on a credit card. I received payment into my bank on Monday 15th August. However this was the amount offered in early May 2011 and they had taken a further 3 PPI payments since then. Just rung RBS and they are going to look into it. I thought the reason they had such a backlog with credit cards was because they have to do recalculations. Obviously I was mistaken.

Hi Flosser,

can I ask what number you used to call RBS?

Thanks

smitchy73

k77mss wrote: »

hi guys could somebody please give me the quotes from fsa handbook ithink its them that tells companys about not upholding complains reguarding staffs advice at time of sale not being sole reason. hope this makes sence trying to write letter back to blackhorse after they said no
thanxs

This is the full garp from the 'Final Handbook' from the FSA guidance, this is the section on

"[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

3.2 The assessment of a complaint

[/FONT]

3.2.1 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider, in the light of all the information provided by the
complainant and otherwise already held by or available to the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm[/FONT], whether there

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

FSA 2010/36

[/FONT][/FONT]

Page 5 of 14

was a breach or failing by the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm[/FONT].
3.2.2 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should seek to establish the true substance of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT], rather than
taking a narrow interpretation of the issues raised, and should not focus solely on
the specific expression of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT]. This is likely to require an approach to

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

complaint [/FONT]handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT].
3.2.3 G A [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]may need to contact a complainant directly to understand fully the issues
raised, even where the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm r[/FONT]eceived the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]from a third party acting on
the complainant’s behalf. The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not use this contact to delay the
assessment of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT].
3.2.4 G Where a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]raises (expressly or otherwise) issues that may relate to the
original sale or a subsequently rejected claim then, irrespective of the main focus
of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT], the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should pro-actively consider whether the issues relate
to both the sale and the claim, and assess the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]and determine redress
accordingly.
3.2.5 G If, during the assessment of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT], the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]uncovers evidence of a
breach or failing not raised in the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT], the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider those other
aspects as if they were part of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT].
3.2.6 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should take into account any information it already holds about the sale
and consider other issues that may be relevant to the sale identified by the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm

[/FONT]

through other means, for example, the root cause analysis described in [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]DISP [/FONT]App
3.4.
3.2.7 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider all of its sales of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]payment protection contracts [/FONT]to the
complainant in respect of re-financed loans that were rolled up into the loan
covered by the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]payment protection contract [/FONT]that is the subject of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT].
The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider the cumulative financial impact on the complainant of
any previous breaches or failings in those sales.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

3.3 The approach to considering evidence

[/FONT]

3.3.1 G Where a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]is made, the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should assess the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]fairly, giving
appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence,
including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

firm [/FONT]identifies. The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]is not expected automatically to assume that there has
been a breach or failing.
3.3.2 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy’s

[/FONT]

terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the
sale.
3.3.3 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not
dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by
documentary proof. The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should take account of a complainant’s limited
ability fully to articulate his [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]or to explain his actions or decisions
made at the time of the sale.

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

FSA 2010/36

[/FONT][/FONT]

Page 6 of 14

3.3.4 G Where the complainant’s account of events conflicts with the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm’s [/FONT]own records
or leaves doubt, the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should assess the reliability of the complainant’s
account fairly and in good faith. The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should make all reasonable efforts
(including by contact with the complainant where necessary) to clarify
ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before making any finding against the
complainant.
3.3.5 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis
that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy[/FONT].
3.3.6 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not reject a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]because the complainant failed to exercise
the right to cancel the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy[/FONT].
3.3.7 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in
itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy [/FONT]or had
understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing
by the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm.

[/FONT]

3.3.8 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having
kept documentation relating to the purchase of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy [/FONT]for any particular
period of time.
3.3.9 G In determining a particular [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint[/FONT], the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should (unless there are reasons
not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give
more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale
(including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general
evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales
scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).
3.3.10 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or
because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact
give advice in a particular sale. The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider the available evidence
and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly
or implicitly) to the complainant.
3.3.11 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should consider in all situations whether it communicated information
to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due
regard to the complainant’s information needs.
3.3.12 G In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the
complainant’s information needs, the evidence to which a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should have
regard includes:
(1) the complainant’s individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for
example, the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should take into account any evidence of limited
financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant’s objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]customer’s [/FONT]perspective, the documentation
provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold][FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

FSA 2010/36

[/FONT][/FONT]

Page 7 of 14

fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible
language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient
information was communicated during the sale discussion for the

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]

customer [/FONT]to make an informed decision (for example, did the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]give an
oral explanation of the main characteristics of the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]policy [/FONT]or specifically
draw the complainant’s attention to that information on a computer screen
or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for
example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to
have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]in response to
questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
3.3.13 G The [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]firm [/FONT]should not reject a [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]complaint [/FONT]solely because the complainant had held a

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic]payment protection contract [/FONT]previously.

Hope this helps.

sheenaneenah

Hi this is my first time posting and wondered if anyone could help? i got stung with a ppi reclaiming company and really dont want to go through one again!

Here goes...
Loan 1-started 31/01/2003
amount of loan £12000.00
interest charged £3948.00
PPI £2642.21
interest on ppi £3511.50
total payable £19459.50
APR 8.8%
loan duration 84 months

This loan was then consolidated with the following-
Loan 2-started 09/09/2004
amount of loan £14797.98
interest charged £4616.97
PPI £3734.78
interest on ppi £1165.25
total payable £24314.98
APR 9.9%
loan duration 72 months

this loan was then paid off on 23/04/2007.
I dont have any rebate figures exactly but i do have a percentage breakdown as following:
Early settlement tables rebate calculated to the nearest one percent and it looks to be around 57% on loan 1, and loan 2 around 30% if this makes any sense? I am totally confused by it all!!

Loan 3 may be a little more straight forward and is a totally seperate loan to the other 2

Loan 3- started 03/03/2009 and is still running
amount of loan £6500.00
interest £2795.44
PPI inclusive of 5%insurance premium tax where applicable £1670.37
interest on PPI £718.37
total payable £11684.18
APR 15.9%
loan duration 60 months

thankyou to anyone that may be able to help!

moggy2009

Hi there i emailed robert diamond from barclays about the ridiculous waiting times on the phone and have recieved a phonecall from barclats but wasnt in hope im not in trouble!!!!!;)