PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

di3004

mikeb222 wrote: »

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?

Hi Mike, well fingers crossed for you.;)
Please keep us posted so that others will be aware as well thank you.

If they do not consider this for you make sure you get plenty of advice, but you are able to claim through I believe "small claims courts" not sure on how this works though as I have not gone this direction myself but I am sure others on here will advise you, or you can contact your local CAB.
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/small_claims.htm

marshallka

mikeb222 wrote: »

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?

You are always free to use the courts and its more the limitations act that matters in these cases. You should be ok as this was within 6 years.

mikeb222

marshallka wrote: »

You are always free to use the courts and its more the limitations act that matters in these cases. You should be ok as this was within 6 years.

Sorry, what does the limitations act mean?

marshallka

mikeb222 wrote: »

Sorry, what does the limitations act mean?

The limitations act is an act that could be thrown in by the bank if your complaint is too old to be looked into (ie over 6 years ago) and state its actually statute barred. You don't have to mention this though unless they put up a defence (which they cannot as yours is under 6 years old).

If this was the case (and yours is not) then you can use section 32 of the limitations act which states that its not statute barred if you only just became aware of this and therefore it can be overuled. (i think that is how it works). There is also another thing that the banks can put in their letters and that is the 3 year rule which says that "you should have reasonably been aware of this complaint within 3 years" but this is not the case in most cases as we only just became aware of all this misselling through the media attention to it.

Are you going through the courts then? If you are then the Ombudsman can not look into it once you have started court proceedings.

stereo_mike

Yes I have read it, and I have spoken with our FOS representative, who has not heard anything about it.

The FOS have always "considered" cases, but it doesn't actually mean that they can adjudicate on them.

I only last week received a letter from the FOS stating that they are unable to look at a particular case, due to it being sold prior to 14th January 2005.

I just hope your're not using that statement to get business.

marshallka

I thought that MSE Wendy was meaning that nothing has changed and its exactly as its always been in that FOS consider complaints according to the FSA regulation (NOTE FROM MSE WENDY - this is correct marshallka) and also if they were part of the GISC, Banking Ombudsman etc. I assume that Pintpotts mean that "banking" compaints can go back to any date really (even older than 6 years) as they were part of the banking Ombudsman and GISC members complaints can go back further.

I asked the FOS if they had "changed" any rules and they said to me they had not.

dunstonh

There is absolutely nothing that has been published to suggest any change by the FOS from the position that they have always held on pre-regulated sales.

They will consider pre-regulation complaints and if the firm voluntarily agrees to it, they will make a ruling. If the firm doesn't then they cannot make a ruling.

Considering a complaint does not mean the same as actually agreeing to take on all complaints irrespective of whether there is a remit for them to do so or not.

marshallka

stereo_mike wrote: »

I just hope your're not using that statement to get business.

Check out the signature!!!

I just feel for those that have had their hopes put back up again if this is untrue as I was told by FOS.

stereo_mike

marshallka wrote: »

Check out the signature!!!

I just feel for those that have had their hopes put back up again if this is untrue as I was told by FOS.

I've already reported them for breaching forum etiquette.

I'm just checking details on their regulators sight as well, for the rules they have to abide by, and to see if the statment they have on their website can be classed as mis-leading potential clients.

PintoPotts

I personally spoke with a senior manager at FOS last week (called Caroline), she had read the article on the site and asked us to make a few changes so it reads as it does now, she has since read it and agreed with everything in it, so that article has pretty much come from the horses mouth.

In terms of us soliciting for business on here, we actually give FREE initial legal advice and have helped several people here on this forum who have contacted us about their complaints - all for NO PROFIT.