Egg Canada square ppi rejected

chonty1982

Hi guys,

I have left it quite late but thought I’d try reclaim my PPI for some old loans and a credit card from egg. They are saying they sent me a letter in Jan 2013 stating I had ppi which might have been mid-sold and because I’m complaimimg three years after that the complaint is time barred. I haven’t ever seen a letter from egg. Is it worth taking it to the ombudsman? Or have I just left it too late? Any help appreciated :-)

Thanks
Chantelle

[Deleted User]

You've left it too late.

chonty1982

Ok thank you.

toojohnny

Hi, if I were you I wouldn't listen to someone who simply replies with a 5-word not backed up reply. The problem is that any company could use that as a defence (oh they wrote to you once, so now you can't claim) Can they prove they wrote to you? Exactly. If you think they will fob you off, then why not use of of the many PPI claiming companies. Yes, they may want 25% of any final settlement, but if there is a valid PPI claim, then they also won't be fobbed off. And 75% is much better than you getting nothing at all! John

[Deleted User]

If I were the OP, I wouldn't listen to anyone who encourages them to use a PPI company who will simply follow the same free to use process that the OP can.

If the OP believes the company is lying about the time bar, then they should go to the Ombudsman themselves and let the Ombudsman view the mail file evidence for themselves.

Paying someone to buy a stamp for them won't serve any additional purpose.

-taff

toojohnny wrote: »

Hi, if I were you I wouldn't listen to someone who simply replies with a 5-word not backed up reply.

Yes, you should listen to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about instead.

toojohnny wrote: »

The problem is that any company could use that as a defence (oh they wrote to you once, so now you can't claim)

Well, it's not a defence, it's accepted by the Ombudsman as a time bar.

toojohnny wrote: »

Can they prove they wrote to you?

They don't have to prove it, they have to show the Ombudsman they did. The only way to overturn the timebar would be to have moved house when the letter was sent so it was sent to an old address.

toojohnny wrote: »

If you think they will fob you off, then why not use of of the many PPI claiming companies. Yes, they may want 25% of any final settlement, but if there is a valid PPI claim, then they also won't be fobbed off. And 75% is much better than you getting nothing at all! John

I really bloody hate the phrase 'fobbed off' I hear it several times a week here, from people who have no idea what they are doing, and can't be bothered to do their research before they go ahead with their 'claim' [ which is a COMPLAINT!!!]

I need a holiday.

[Deleted User]

toojohnny wrote: »

if there is a valid PPI claim, then they also won't be fobbed off.

A valid time bar cannot be overridden by any claim company.

toojohnny

-taff wrote: »

Yes, you should listen to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about instead.

What are your legal qualifications? Being on here every day I don't believe is a professional qualification, but I could be wrong of course.



Well, it's not a defence, it's accepted by the Ombudsman as a time bar.

Really? So you are saying that a company can merely say they have done something, and it's taken as factual? Interesting...

They don't have to prove it, they have to show the Ombudsman they did. The only way to overturn the timebar would be to have moved house when the letter was sent so it was sent to an old address.

So no proof needed by the companies that did the PPI (the same PPI that is now considered unfair). Again....interesting point you make.



I really bloody hate the phrase 'fobbed off' I hear it several times a week here, from people who have no idea what they are doing, and can't be bothered to do their research before they go ahead with their 'claim' [ which is a COMPLAINT!!!]

Again, you definitely sound like you do know what you are doing. What word would you use? (instead of the one you b..hate) I could learn a lot from these forums....

-taff

There is no fobbing, it's a defined process with a defined redress. A bit of research [because Google is your friend if you are looking for information] is needed to avoid falling into the 'mammy, mammy, the big nasty bank smacked me' syndrome or the purchase of many rolls of tin foil.

In answer to your question about proof, read this, at the very end.....

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/guidance/gc12-04.pdf

-taff

By the way, PPI is not a legal issue so I don't need any legal qualifications.
If you're trying for one-upmanship there, or trying to discredit me repeating facts, it won't be biting me on the @rse.

There are two types of people in this world: 1) Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data

toojohnny

-taff wrote: »

There is no fobbing, it's a defined process with a defined redress. A bit of research [because Google is your friend if you are looking for information] is needed to avoid falling into the 'mammy, mammy, the big nasty bank smacked me' syndrome or the purchase of many rolls of tin foil.

In answer to your question about proof, read this, at the very end.....

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/static/pubs/guidance/gc12-04.pdf

If I never need legal counsel, I might like to hire you. I think you need to get straight how honest you think these companies are though. If they were totally honest, there either would have been no PPI in the first place, or they would be automatically refunding people - and neither is the case. Maybe I won't hire you after all. I just hope the original poster wasn't put off with the abrupt 5-word reply (fob off) and actually looks into it, rather than trusting armchair experts (or taking the companies word for it) as that is what the whole post was about...and then my non-qualified reply. The resident forumites then went got up in arms. Good day to you.