We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Claiming PPI from 1988
Comments
-
magpiecottage wrote: »15% interest to, if I remember correctly, April 1993.
Why 15%?
In the op the interest rate was 19.7%.
For the life of the loan 19.7% would have been charged against the ppi premium.
Ppi premium plus interest charged (19.7%) for life of loan plus 8% statutory interest less income tax on the statutory interest.0 -
Why 15%?
In the op the interest rate was 19.7%.
For the life of the loan 19.7% would have been charged against the ppi premium.
Ppi premium plus interest charged (19.7%) for life of loan plus 8% statutory interest less income tax on the statutory interest.
It's the premiums charged plus 19.7% (interest charged) plus statutory interest.
Statutory interest is: 15% up until 1993 and 8% after 1993.0 -
When it comes to PPI, the people on the phones are adjudicators.
With the admittedly anecdotal evidence of these forums, if the front line phone staff are adjudicators, they might need retraining as some of them don't have a clue (like accepting cases from pre-2005 non-banks etc). If they are taking details of cases for 20 mins on the phone, might also explain why the queue is 18 months or more
That said, the link below explains a lot
http://www.professionaladviser.com/ifaonline/news/2123582/fos-defends-hiring-process-25yo-law-grad-adjudicatorSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
That said, the link below explains a lot
http://www.professionaladviser.com/ifaonline/news/2123582/fos-defends-hiring-process-25yo-law-grad-adjudicator
Don't really see how that's relevant or a problem...
When I was 23 I was representing people at tribunals. A former magistrate at my (former) local courthouse was 26. A barrister in a theft trial I attended a few weeks back was barely 25.
Age is just a number.
0 -
-
magpiecottage wrote: »Oh no they're not - or at least most aren't.
Adjudicators are much more expensive!
Oh yes they are!0 -
Don't really see how that's relevant or a problem...
When I was 23 I was representing people at tribunals. A former magistrate at my (former) local courthouse was 26. A barrister in a theft trial I attended a few weeks back was barely 25.
Age is just a number.
Think you missed the point of that article, the issue wasn't the age, it was the fact that they hired someone with zero experience in the financial field and gave them a month training and bunged them in.
If you have some evidence that the first line people answering calls at the FOS are the same people making the decisions on the validity of complaints it would be interesting to read it as it would explain why they have such a huge backlogSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Really - then why was I told differently at a FOS meeting last week? You get some who will spend a bit of time gaining some experience there but not for long.Oh yes they are!
I agree with Nasqueron, too. The reality is that FOS were taking on new law graduates to make decisions about whether advice which was given when they were still having the pooh wiped off their bums by their Mummies was correct - advice which they were still not qualified to give themselves.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »Really - then why was I told differently at a FOS meeting last week? You get some who will spend a bit of time gaining some experience there but not for long.
I agree with Nasqueron, too. The reality is that FOS were taking on new law graduates to make decisions about whether advice which was given when they were still having the pooh wiped off their bums by their Mummies was correct - advice which they were still not qualified to give themselves.
Well my experience has been that whenever I have called the PPI helpline (and I do quite regularly) I have spoken to an adjudicator. I know this debate was had sometime ago too - and there were some documents I posted which showed the different structure for the PPI side of things and other areas of their work.
As for the second paragraph - I am not so sure. There was a fairly recent article about this which made some good points - i.e. understanding the actual purpose of FOS and also considering the experience of the ombudsmen themselves.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.1K Spending & Discounts
- 246.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards