First Direct loan for DFS furniture Pre regulation ?

pauln12

"Then you asked how come they upheld some....So I answered, because the PPI was probably sold after 2005 and they were regulated then and could not dismiss the complaint."

It is you missiterpretting me, I didn't ask how they upheld "some", I asked how the responsibility for my sale pre 2005 was being upheld.
I know the answer, it isn't.

You keep telling me DFS were responsible for the sale pre 2005, but that responsibility is not being acknowledged by DFS because they were not regulated to do so. So how are they acting responsibly ?
What is the point of making someone responsible for something if the responsibility can be ignored.

[Deleted User]

pauln12 wrote: »

you seem to be repeating the same thing over and over.

Yes.
This is because you have continued the thread even though the answer to your query was given at post #2.

Your complaint is rejected.

It is therefore utterly futile trying to "debate" semantics about it here.

As for working for the banks, I'll treat that accusation with the contempt it deserves..

societys_child

For goodness sake, which bit are you struggling to understand?
I'm beginning to think you're just trying to wind people up.

They were not regulated.

They don't have to consider your complaint because, as they were not regulated there were no regulations they had to adhere to. It's simple.

If a road was once de-restricted (70mph) and has now been reduced to a 50mph limit, motorists who drove along it at 70mph in the past, cannot be prosecuted retrospectively.

Aghhh . . .

pauln12

I undersatnd totally, they were not regulated, so they can reject my complaint.

I am definitely not trying to wind anyone up, i was questioning, and venting my frustration about DFS, other unregulated sellers, and the banks being able to act irresponsibly.
It soon became apparent there was nothing I could do in respect of my complaint with DFS.
But if someone feels agrieved about something, and another person agrees with them, it can help ease the feeling of frustration, even if nothing can be done about it. I guess that is what I was hoping for, but never mind, just using the forum has helped. I won't need to go into therapy just yet !! Some of you might not agree !

I have already stated my original question has been answered.

I know I am not going to get anywhere with this. And I agree, it is, apparently, futile for me to try to debtate my point of view.
If I have been responsible for a mistake, I like to think I would and have rectified, it if at all possible. And if not possible would compensate whoever suffered from the mistake, or at the very least would apologise. Even though I am not regulated to do so.
Surely that is what responsibility is ?
The unregulated, but responsible sellers of PPI obviously have totally different view.

I apologise if I was wrong to think anyone who posted a reply was connected to the banks in some form. But I didn't "accuse" I just said "I can't help wondering" and that was the truth, It appeared from your replies you were siding with the banks. That is just my humble opinion, and again if I was wrong, I apologise.

As far as I am cocerned my question has been answered more than once in this thread and it is finished for me.
So, thank you all for taking the time to pst your replies,the helpfull and the not.

[Deleted User]

pauln12 wrote: »

venting my frustration about DFS, other unregulated sellers, and the banks being able to act irresponsibly.

In fact, Banks were regulated prior to 2005 which is why they have to consider complaints about earlier finance.

BoGoF

If you want a rant in future there is a dedicated section on this forum.....you will find like minded people there