PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

marshallka

tommy44 wrote: »

Hi Stereomike

Can I ask your advice on this please?

a, I have already been told by the BH that I cannot refer to the FOS.
b, The FOS know this and said that this is now incorrect.
c, I have written to BH and told them that I have been informed by the FOS and that they will look at the case, therefore I shall complain to them.
d, FOS already know that BH weren't regulated by GISC or FSA at the time of the loan.
e, Knowing this already, considering their huge back log of complaints, will they still look at my case?
f, Is this just lip service, or wanting to be seen to be doing the right thing?
g, What determines whether they can or cannot take my case on. Is it the type of complaint?

It just feels like a total waste of time going down this route if I have to wait X amount of months to be told that the FOS can't help, when they have had the opportunity to do so at the beginning of my request.

I have had a letter and application form to fill in from the FOS, stating that they have written to BH and given them 8 wks to respond to my complaint with a final decision. So at least BH know that the FOS have listened to my initial complaint.

Thank you for your opinion and advice.

May be something they have picked up about jurisdiction and being linked to Lloyds?????

Lloyds TSB History

Lloyds Bank was founded as the private bank of Taylors & Lloyds in Birmingham in June 1765. For nearly 100 years it prospered from a single Birmingham office.
Changes in legislation and a need for increased capital led the firm to convert to joint-stock status in 1865. This resulted in an explosion of growth and the first of many take-overs.
In the 1880s Lloyds, turned its attention to London. In 1884 it absorbed the Lombard Street bank of Barnetts, Hoares, Hanbury & Lloyd. This marked the beginning of the bank’s association with the famous black horse; Barnetts, Hoares & Co. had inherited the symbol, which had originally been used by a Lombard Street goldsmith as early as 1677.
The first half of the 20th century saw the bank's expansion overseas, including continental Europe, South America and India. Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society joined the group in 1995.

tommy44

Thanks for your replies.

Looks like I'm up the creak without a paddle!!!

marshallka

tommy44 wrote: »

Thanks for your replies.

Looks like I'm up the creak without a paddle!!!

Not necessarily tommy, maybe FOS have found a way to MAKE Black Horse take these complaints. That is what i was saying before. Maybe it has something to do with Lloyds as FOS are telling you that they will look at it. Its just a thought????? I always though Black Horse would be under jurisdicition cause of LLoyds being a bank and them being part of them and all banks were part of the old banking Ombudsman so come under jurisdiction for any complaints of any age.

I had the same thing happen to me by the FOS and it is annoying when you would like a "yes" we can look or a "no" we cannot deal with it quicker than they do. Months is a long time and can often leave people with no options of the court routes as they become time barred.

So unfair and something needs doing here. I wish you luck.

tommy44

Hi Marshallka

I read somewhere, that although BlackHorse and Lloyds were the same Company back then, Lloyds were regulated and Black Horse were not. Trying to find where I read it, so I don't think I will have any joy there either.

Thank you for your positiveness it's appreciated.

petermb_2

All this talk of the FOS taking longer and longer makes the case for an ethical claims service stronger and stronger. Settlements in 5-9 months do not seems quite so bad when the FOS is talking of 18 months before they look at cases.
If they are going to begin to look at cases pre FSA they will get even more bogged down.

marshallka

petermb wrote: »

All this talk of the FOS taking longer and longer makes the case for an ethical claims service stronger and stronger. Settlements in 5-9 months do not seems quite so bad when the FOS is talking of 18 months before they look at cases.
If they are going to begin to look at cases pre FSA they will get even more bogged down.

Do you think they will start to look at pre FSA (even if they are not GISC or Banks)????

More to the point how can they do this? Is there something within the FSMA that allows them to do this? I thought all finance was regulated (if that is the right words) by the FSA and prior to that GISC or if the firms were members of the Banking Ombudsman service etc. Surely if they are doing this then this should open the doors to various other complaints being handled by the FOS and where does it all end??? Its so confusing. They say they handle cases on "merit" but how is this merit worked out and how do we as consumers know when our cases are thrown back that the FOS has got it right. We get told "sorry we have not got jurisdiction over your complaint" and that is all. Shoud they now explain in plain english "why" they have not jurisidcition. It all seems to be so unfair if they are doing this now (and not totally sure they are) as what about those that have submitted them and then have to resubmit after waiting 4 months or so to be told they do not have jursidiction and then told we can now look???? Should we then have complaints with the Ombudsman about the Ombudsman service and them giving out wrong advice. I find this hard to believe that they can now look into something that they could not look into a few months ago?

What a blummin mess it all is. Just what are the rules and how do WE know they have all followed them correctly???

tommy44

I agree with you, Marshallka. It is a mess. If the FOS are doing this, then they should make it common knowledge on their web site, and give a break down of how and who is going to decide what cases they can support.

Is there no independent government body that we can lobby? Would it be worth getting up a petition, or has this already been done. Sorry if I'm going over old ground.

I am just livid:mad: that they are allowed to get away with this. IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE WHO HAS WON THEIR CASE PRE 2005 WITH A BANK THAT WAS NOT REGULATED!!!

Surely the Banks can't get away with it.

Regards

petermb_2

Actually there were a number of products including term life assurance that were totally unregulated for quite some time.

The real problem is that the FOS is an abitory arrangement. It has no teeth at all and cannot really over-rule the lenders and they are not obliged to follow the ruling of the ombudsman.

I hate to say it but there is a real need for ethical services that seek justice. I know i keep banging on about it . It should not really be left to private companies to seek justice in these instances but it is blatantly obvious that government and regulators are not going to do it.

In fact there have been little tweeks to various laws that are blatantly to protect the lender to the detriment of borrowers. I could name at least three straight off the top of my head.

I know the claims industry is full of sharks and vagabonds but there are a few of us that simply want to do a good job and offer an ethical service without the borrower being charged. Yes it can be done and still be profitable.

stereo_mike

marshallka wrote: »

Do you think they will start to look at pre FSA (even if they are not GISC or Banks)????

More to the point how can they do this? Is there something within the FSMA that allows them to do this? I thought all finance was regulated (if that is the right words) by the FSA and prior to that GISC or if the firms were members of the Banking Ombudsman service etc. Surely if they are doing this then this should open the doors to various other complaints being handled by the FOS and where does it all end??? Its so confusing. They say they handle cases on "merit" but how is this merit worked out and how do we as consumers know when our cases are thrown back that the FOS has got it right. We get told "sorry we have not got jurisdiction over your complaint" and that is all. Shoud they now explain in plain english "why" they have not jurisidcition. It all seems to be so unfair if they are doing this now (and not totally sure they are) as what about those that have submitted them and then have to resubmit after waiting 4 months or so to be told they do not have jursidiction and then told we can now look???? Should we then have complaints with the Ombudsman about the Ombudsman service and them giving out wrong advice. I find this hard to believe that they can now look into something that they could not look into a few months ago?

What a blummin mess it all is. Just what are the rules and how do WE know they have all followed them correctly???

Just to confuse you all further I have detailed below some links which state what the FOS can look out. However, be mindful of the word "consider" that comes up reguarly

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP/2/2

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP/2/3

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP/2/4

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DISP/2/5

There is also no point in complaining to the FOSa s they will just state that what they told you in a phone call cannot be used against them. The FOS love using the disclaimer of "any advice we provide cannot be used against the FOS if it turns out to be incorrect in the future"

mikeb222

My case is with Ocean Finance.

They mis-sold me PPI in Nov 04 but they werent regulated untill Jan 05 (for insurance-they were regulated before that for loans etc)

So my case was returned by the FOS for this reason, but after reading this thread I phoned and they said they will re-consider my case so I have had to return it to them.

Anyway, my question is, can I just go straight through the courts with this case even if they werent regulated?
Anyone done this?