We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!
PPI reclaim - useful tip I learned
Options
GreenwichGirl1972
Posts: 4 Newbie
I was missold ppi 3 times by two banks and both rejected my complaints. I referred my complaints to the financial ombudsman and over the last two years I've had 2 reject letters from adjudicators and another from an investigator. So that was that, or so I thought.
At Christmas someone told me that just because an adjudicator or investigator rejects your complaint you can still appeal to have it looked at again EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO MORE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE.
So for my most recent one I asked for an ombudsman to look at it - I had nothing more to add but I just wanted it looking at again. And last week I won
and my bank will pay me back in a few weeks.
MORAL OF THE STORY - even if an adjudicator or investigator rejects your complaint and you have no more evidence you should always ask for an ombudsman to look at it again. Apparently 10% of complaints are reversed by the ombudsman even if there's no more evidence :j
At Christmas someone told me that just because an adjudicator or investigator rejects your complaint you can still appeal to have it looked at again EVEN IF YOU HAVE NO MORE INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE.
So for my most recent one I asked for an ombudsman to look at it - I had nothing more to add but I just wanted it looking at again. And last week I won
and my bank will pay me back in a few weeks.MORAL OF THE STORY - even if an adjudicator or investigator rejects your complaint and you have no more evidence you should always ask for an ombudsman to look at it again. Apparently 10% of complaints are reversed by the ombudsman even if there's no more evidence :j
0
Comments
-
Apparently 10% of complaints are reversed by the ombudsman even if there's no more evidence
Evidence is not the issue. The adjudicator should have all the evidence. Its more a case of whether the adjudicator has come to a conclusion that is deemed correct.Apparently 10% of complaints are reversed by the ombudsman even if there's no more evidence
This includes cases where the adjudicator has upheld the complaint and the firm has appealed to an ombudsman and the ombudsman change the decision away for the consumer in favour of the firm.
PPI reversals are not common. It has happened but its mainly on complicated cases where you see it.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
You're probably right...I can see you work in finance and I don't. But I was just saying that when the financial ombudsman rejected my complaint it cost me nothing to ask them to refer it to an ombudsman. And for the sake of an email the worst outcome was going to be another reject letter. But in my case that one line email was worth just over £860. So I think it was worth it. And I was only sharing my experience :j0
-
GreenwichGirl1972 wrote: »You're probably right...I can see you work in finance and I don't. But I was just saying that when the financial ombudsman rejected my complaint it cost me nothing to ask them to refer it to an ombudsman. And for the sake of an email the worst outcome was going to be another reject letter. But in my case that one line email was worth just over £860. So I think it was worth it. And I was only sharing my experience :j
It's not even some sort of secret tip. The right of appeal to the Ombudsman is freely publicised. As Dunstonh has said, 90% of them just confirm what the Adjudicator saysSam 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 -
Ok...well I didn't know. Guess I'm one of the lucky 10% ��0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards