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
PPI: Dorothy Perkins Store Card
Comments
-
But it wasnt without her knowledge, it would have been itemised seperately on every monthly statement that she received....she must have seen it
You need to see some paper statements. to check what is on them.make the most of it, we are only here for the weekend.
and we will never, ever return.0 -
So, from fraud we've now moved to actual theft?All I know is I'm trying to help a family member out in recouping money that was taken without her knowledge.
I think you need to be calling the police rather than making a mis-selling complaint!
Seriously, find some simple and valid mis-selling reasons and the policy will be refunded to you. Make unfounded accusations about fraud and theft and the complaint will doubtless be rejected.0 -
Thank you Mersey! This has been really helpful and exactly why I signed up here. Very informative. :beer:
To those saying I've gone off half-cocked. I've simply read the documents provided and took note. No my mother hasn't spoken to anyone since about adding it on and also the only reason it was noticed was because I transferred her to online banking and took over payments. I haven't seen past paper statements so I don't know what they had on them but if they did have something on them it could, in my opinion, look like some form of interest to someone who is oblivious to this kind of thing.
All I know is I'm trying to help a family member out in recouping money that was taken without her knowledge. Fraudulent or not, either way I don't care. The fact my mum has been paying more than her minimum payment each money (totaling to over £200) and they have charged her about £170 in this charge and interest is ridiculous to me.
You're very welcome, MrRyAn.
Moneyineptitude - I don't have a problem with equating the mis-selling of PPI to a fraud on the public.
But, as you may be aware there are obvious reasons why prosecutions are rare in such instances, quite apart from the passage of time or that deception resulting in a loss of £1 would hardly be a police priority, even though with PPI it occurred a million times and more.
Plus the Fraud Act - which brought together and codified a dozen deception offences from various pieces of old legislation - wasn't in place back then, so we can't have retrospective prosecutions for offences which didn't exist eg 20 years ago.
The OP isn't raising a novel point. It appears it was widespread. Now, no doubt Debenhams or DP may simply say it was down to poor staff training.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
You're very welcome, MrRyAn.
Moneyineptitude - I don't have a problem with equating the mis-selling of PPI to a fraud on the public.
But, as you may be aware there are obvious reasons why prosecutions are rare in such instances, quite apart from the passage of time or that deception resulting in a loss of £1 would hardly be a police priority, even though with PPI it occurred a million times and more.
Plus the Fraud Act - which brought together and codified a dozen deception offences from various pieces of old legislation - wasn't in place back then, so we can't have retrospective prosecutions for offences which didn't exist eg 20 years ago.
The OP isn't raising a novel point. It appears it was widespread. Now, no doubt Debenhams or DP may simply say it was down to poor staff training.
Would you concur that the same accusation of fraud could be put against the many people (and CMCs) who put in fictitious complaints against banks even where there was no PPI present or where, for example, the person accuses the bank of a hard sell from a staff member when it turns out it was applied for online?Sam 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 -
Indeed I would, especially CMCs.
Professionally, I combat fraudulent insurance claims and have done so for over 10 years. [Sadly it's rare for the civil claims be referred for criminal prosecutions even where the Judge dismisses the claim and finds fraud, but the City of London Police are decent and have a dedicated counter fraud unit]
So I'm usually suspicious of claims and claimants. However, that also means I'm suspicious of rogue behaviour whether it be perpetrated by banks or the DWP etc.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Indeed I would, especially CMCs.
Professionally, I combat fraudulent insurance claims and have done so for over 10 years. [Sadly it's rare for the civil claims be referred for criminal prosecutions even where the Judge dismisses the claim and finds fraud, but the City of London Police are decent and have a dedicated counter fraud unit]
So I'm usually suspicious of claims and claimants. However, that also means I'm suspicious of rogue behaviour whether it be perpetrated by banks or the DWP etc.
I think a lot of the CMCs would be out of business if each case they sent to the FOS after the bank confirmed there was no PPI resulted in a fraud case Sam 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 -
Indeed.
They can be fined - although the Claims Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Justice has a huge backlog, dealing with all the rogue CMCs in the RTA/personal injury sector, let alone the PPI and industrial deafness crowd. No doubt next we'll all start receiving texts asking whether we suffered medical negligence.
[Incidentally, you can forward any spam PPI texts to 7726]Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Indeed.
They can be fined - although the Claims Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Justice has a huge backlog, dealing with all the rogue CMCs in the RTA/personal injury sector, let alone the PPI and industrial deafness crowd. No doubt next we'll all start receiving texts asking whether we suffered medical negligence.
[Incidentally, you can forward any spam PPI texts to 7726]
I got spam texts after a car drove into me when cycling, either the police or the hospital referred them (hospital I suspect as they had posters in A&E about claiming) - it's the referral fee greed and no win no fee world we are in nowSam 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 -
Yes, referral fees were banned in the PI sector 3 years ago; but, I suspect a lot of it is still going on.
The ICO are now fining orgs who send spam texts - some on an industrial scale.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Hi everyone,
thought I'd all let you know that we were successful in claiming back the mis-sold PPI regaining almost 3k.
Thanks to everyone who offered sound advice and helped me! To the others who doubted... well the proof is in the pudding!
Thanks again.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 247K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.3K Life & Family
- 261.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards