PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

angeleyes99

Opinions_needed wrote: »

Thank you. That's a very encouraging to hear. I won't give up. These are words of true of encouragement. I will definitley remain open minded. I will start putting all my evidence together and sent it back to FOS. Good luck with your claims.

Thanks. And it's no problem. I felt a bit brow-beaten too when I first came on this forum but I ignored the sarky comments and basically went ahead with my claims anyway. Thankfully.

And although I bow to the obvious knowledge & experience of reclaiming mis-sold PPI which a couple of the regular posters (you know who you both are) clearly display, I think that a bit more attention could be paid to the words at the top of the page - 'Be nice to all MoneySavers'. By all means advise a newby that you feel their complaint will not be upheld for whatever reason - that's fine, it's still their choice if they press ahead with the complaint - but I'm quite troubled by some of the terminology used on here, 'a chancer', 'trying it on' etc etc. Totally unneccesary. Make your point but make it politely, yes?

[Deleted User]

Opinions_needed wrote: »

If u read my first post I have done exactly what you have mentioned above. Gave a detailed explanation and step by step.

Now you are responding to a post I made to another poster. I wasn't refering to you giving a detailed explanation, but the bank.
By the way,I'm at liberty to reply as often as I want to (or not)

angeleyes99 wrote: »

I'm quite troubled by some of the terminology used on here, 'a chancer', 'trying it on' etc etc. Totally unneccesary. Make your point but make it politely, yes?

I've never used any of those terms in any of my posts and certainly not to "Opinions needed"

angeleyes99

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This is not "detailing" exactly why your complaint was upheld! :eek:

Detailing would involve a point-by-point explanation of exactly how the PPI was not suitable for you. Clearly, the Bank did not do this in the reply you quoted but only spoke in general terms.

The Banks send form letters for both rejections and successes. The rejections are copy and pasted generic responses to every conceivable complaint reason, the successes are similarly replied to.

My, you are tetchy tonight aren't you...;)

The PPI policy was 'not suitable' for us as my late husband and I were both adequately covered for sickness and redundancy by our repective employers therefore we did not need it as a) it would not have paid out because we already had cover in place and b) We already had cover in place therefore would not have missed any payments.There is no other reason why it was not suitable for us and I didn't need Barclays to explain this point by point, I understood what they meant, exactly as they had understood me.:)

[Deleted User]

angeleyes99 wrote: »

I didn't need Barclays to explain this point by point

The issue is that you said they did when quite clearly they didn't!:p

angeleyes99

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Now you are responding to a post I made to another poster. I wasn't refering to you giving a detailed explanation, but the bank.
By the way,I'm at liberty to reply as often as I want to (or not)

I've never used any of those terms in any of my posts and certainly not to "Opinions needed"

At what point did I say I was addressing that comment to you, Moneyineptitude? It was a general comment, an observation about a forum which I came to a couple of months back, looking for support and encouragement while I went through the process that we're basically all on here to go through. I felt quite patronised and belittled by a couple of the regulars comments. No, they weren't the comments I stated above, but they were unnecessarily sharp comments. And I've seen the comments above used to other new posters.I don't even know if you were one who commented or not. It doesn't matter, my observation is that it's totally unnecessary.
Example: Originally Posted by Moneyineptitude
Read my response to Phil-2244 and you may not feel so encouraged.

angeleyes99

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The issue is that you said they did when quite clearly they didn't!:p

They gave me the reason why they were upholding my complaint - they just didn't give it, or need to give it, point by point. It was totally clear it could only be referring to one thing - the policy wasn't suitable for our needs for the aforementioned reasons.

But feel free to sit up all night and split hairs with any unfortunate who happens along....night night

[Deleted User]

angeleyes99 wrote: »

.I don't even know if you were one who commented or not.

I do know and it wasn't me. You even thanked me for my input at the time! I really resent the fact that you claim not to know.

angeleyes99 wrote: »

It doesn't matter, my observation is that it's totally unnecessary.
Example: Originally Posted by Moneyineptitude
Read my response to Phil-2244 and you may not feel so encouraged.

I see no hostility in that post, just exasperation that the poster concerned was interested in hearing only what they wanted to hear.

angeleyes99

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I do know and it wasn't me. You even thanked me for my input at the time! I really resent the fact that you claim not to know.

Come on Moneyineptitude, stop writing your own interpretation of what I said! I meant that it was irrelevant who used those two phrases, just the fact they were used was unnecessary. And my 'claim not to know' was regarding the fact that I couldn't remember who posted comments on my first few posts on here, nice comments or otherwise. And I can't be bothered searching back. I just remember feeling a bit surprised by the abrasiveness of a couple of comments I received. But I was not referring to you in any way, shape or form, ok? Friends again?:)

I see no hostility in that post, just exasperation that the poster concerned was interested in hearing only what they wanted to hear.

There are kinder ways to let someone down, if you must let them down, that's all I said....he/she didn't know you were exasperated, being a newby on here...:A

Opinions_needed

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I do know and it wasn't me. You even thanked me for my input at the time! I really resent the fact that you claim not to know.

I see no hostility in that post, just exasperation that the poster concerned was interested in hearing only what they wanted to hear.

When did I indicate that I was only interested in what I wanted to hear. I've read many posts on here where they are in the same position. Not to mention the fos website. You are not part of the fos or bank so u really are not in a position to say it's a weak complaint. Also how do u know what classes as a weak complaint when YOU said banks or fos never give reasons for upholding complaints.

-taff

angeleyes99 wrote: »

Barclays have upheld my complaint, Paragon Finance have not. Lombard require more 'evidence' or the complaint will be closed down. So Pete-2244 is correct when he says that the lack of consistency is troubling.... Paragon told me my loan was taken out 'within a non-regulated environment' and as such they will not entertain my complaint. My loan with Barclays was taken out during the same period of time yet it didn't stop Barclays upholding my complaint.

Paragon and Barclays are two different entities, governed by different regulations.