Past the date for Ombudsman

Foxwold_2

They were quite happy to ignore my letters for the 6 months.

I think I'll press ahead on them grounds.

Cheers for all your help.

Nasqueron

Foxwold wrote: »

They were quite happy to ignore my letters for the 6 months.

I think I'll press ahead on them grounds.

Cheers for all your help.

Press ahead with what? The FOS will simply confirm the 6 month time period was missed, ask the bank if they will re-open and they'll most likely say no.

As I stated before, once the bank rejects and tells you about the FOS option, the 6 months starts ticking, your issue was continuing to chase the bank after they rejected it instead of going to the FOS

Bare in mind if you're taking them to court it will become an issue of proving they have done something wrong and the courts are liable to look at the rules (such as the 6 month referral limit) and side with the bank. You really need to put this one to bed, you are realistically not going to get any further

takman

Foxwold wrote: »

They were quite happy to ignore my letters for the 6 months.

I think I'll press ahead on them grounds.

Cheers for all your help.

That's because you kept harrasing them with letters when they had already turned down your claim!. Why didn't you send letters to the FOS in this time like you were supposed to?

magpiecottage

Foxwold wrote: »

Someone has told my lately that I can start the complaint again with said company then the ombudsman can look at it.

The ombudsman has already told you that you are too late.

Was the somebody this chappie, perhaps?

[Deleted User]

Foxwold wrote: »

They were quite happy to ignore my letters for the 6 months.

I think I'll press ahead

…..and you have simply ignored all of our posts telling you that the complaint is over.

Why ask here if you were going ahead regardless?

Foxwold_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

…..and you have simply ignored all of our posts telling you that the complaint is over.

Why ask here if you were going ahead regardless?

A) what have I got to loose?

all your posts in all threads are negative

C) 'The judgment on the case Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance paves the way for a new stream of customers to receive compensation for Britain’s biggest mis-selling scandal. The FCA’s response to the ruling indicates that if a PPI policy was otherwise sound the seller could still have to repay the customer if it had received a big, undisclosed commission.'

societys_child

if it had received a big, undisclosed commission

Have you discovered that the seller did receive a big, undisclosed commission, or is this simply some sort of fantasy?

dunstonh

all your posts in all threads are negative

Do not mistake negativity when the poster only contributes to the threads on more difficult subjects. By default, the responses will be of that nature.

C) 'The judgment on the case Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance paves the way for a new stream of customers to receive compensation for Britain’s biggest mis-selling scandal. The FCA’s response to the ruling indicates that if a PPI policy was otherwise sound the seller could still have to repay the customer if it had received a big, undisclosed commission.'

Plevin is an issue but a minor one. Commission does tend to be above 50% on loan PPI (figures of around 65% are not uncommon). However, it is only the excess above 50% that will be refunded. Mortgage PPI is way below 50%. So, that is unaffected. Credit card PPI is typically just under 50% too.

Importantly, the FCA have said that providers do not need to go back on previously rejected complaints to review. That doesnt mean they will not look at old ones on request but as the Plevin ruling hasn't come into play yet, it is premature to quote plevin in a follow up. That is something to do later this year.

magpiecottage

Foxwold wrote: »

A) what have I got to loose?

As the case is now outside the jurisdiction of FOS and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, there is at least a theoretical possibility that the bank could charge you for a frivolous and vexatious claim.

Foxwold wrote: »

all your posts in all threads are negative

You are going to die one day. That is an even more negative post than those by moneyineptitude. That does not make it any less true, though.

There is little point seeking guidance if you are going to ignore or object to any comments that are not what you want to hear.

Foxwold wrote: »

C) 'The judgment on the case Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance paves the way for a new stream of customers to receive compensation for Britain’s biggest mis-selling scandal. The FCA’s response to the ruling indicates that if a PPI policy was otherwise sound the seller could still have to repay the customer if it had received a big, undisclosed commission.'

Had your case already gone to FOS and this issue NOT been addressed, you might have grounds for it to be reopened. However, as FOS has already told you that you are too late, it seems most unlikely that it will reopen the case.

If you really insist, I suggest you contact FOS, give the reference number quoted in the previous correspondence in which it told you that you were too late and ask if it will reopen the case in the light of Plevin.

I doubt you will get the answer you want.