PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

PintoPotts

PS: Have removed the signature.

stereo_mike

PintoPotts wrote: »

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.

Do we have a surname of this Caroline?? As it looks like she/the FOS are mis-leading clients even more than usual, and I will personnaly write to her to complain about her mis-leading people and getting their hopes up.

If what you are saying about free legal advice is true, then well done.

marshallka

stereo_mike wrote: »

Do we have a surname of this Caroline?? As it looks like she/the FOS are mis-leading clients even more than usual, and I will personnaly write to her to complain about her mis-leading people and getting their hopes up.

If what you are saying about free legal advice is true, then well done.

I know of a couple on here that have resubmitted complaints and have been told they will "take another look again". Its so unfair when people have their hopes dashed and then back up to be dashed again. Well said stereo mike!

Just have to wait and see what happens with the ones one here.

marshallka

This is what the New Ombudsman (the one as we know it now) took over from


22/02/1999

The FSA today announced the appointment of the Board to run the new single Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme. The new Board will work with the FSA to merge the eight existing schemes in the financial services sector into a single one stop shop Ombudsman service, as proposed under the Financial Services and Markets Bill

The new Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme will bring together The Banking Ombudsman; The Building Societies Ombudsman; The Investment Ombudsman; The Insurance Ombudsman; The PIA Ombudsman Bureau; The Personal Insurance Arbitration Service; The SFA Complaints Bureau and Arbitration Service;

Also they can look into complaints of firms that were members of the GISC too so is this what the poster is on about.

People do and can claim back further than 6 years with Banks as they belonged to the old Banking Ombudsman.

What I want to know is what has changed actually that the poster above seems to indicate to me???

petermb_2

I do not think anything will have changed. The format for the FOS remains linked to FSA regulation. As the FOS is paid for and the staff funded by the institutions what do you guys expect to happen? Do you really think this organisation is suddenly going to "gang up" on its pay masters. Do you really think it is going to be fully pro borrower? I have never thought so and have seen nothing to change my mind.

I have always been of the mind that lender's ears are only pricked up at the sound of court doors or the summons falling through their letter boxes. Until very recently it was impossible, financially for borrowers to utilise the court service as a lever. That has all changed and it can now be done at no cost.

So all those people who have been told that their loans are time barred and pre FSA regulation and any other excuse the lender uses to fob us all off with are out of the window.

masmit

petermb wrote: »

I do not think anything will have changed. The format for the FOS remains linked to FSA regulation. As the FOS is paid for and the staff funded by the institutions what do you guys expect to happen? Do you really think this organisation is suddenly going to "gang up" on its pay masters. Do you really think it is going to be fully pro borrower? I have never thought so and have seen nothing to change my mind.

I have always been of the mind that lender's ears are only pricked up at the sound of court doors or the summons falling through their letter boxes. Until very recently it was impossible, financially for borrowers to utilise the court service as a lever. That has all changed and it can now be done at no cost.

So all those people who have been told that their loans are time barred and pre FSA regulation and any other excuse the lender uses to fob us all off with are out of the window.

Peter,
Can you elaborate on the time barred, because i believe your specialist solicitors can.

marshallka

masmit wrote: »

Peter,
Can you elaborate on the time barred, because i believe your specialist solicitors can.

I assume section 32 of the Limitations act here in that you can use it to overule time barring in courts.

One of the exceptions to this rule is contained in section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980 which provides that, where any fact relevant to a claimant's cause of action has been deliberately concealed from him by the defendant, the limitation period will not begin to run until the claimant has (or could have) discovered the concealment.

Section 32(2) provides that a deliberate commission of a breach of duty in circumstances in which it is unlikely to be discovered for some time amounts to deliberate concealment of the facts involved in that breach of duty.

petermb_2

masmit wrote: »

Peter,
Can you elaborate on the time barred, because i believe your specialist solicitors can.

There are a number of issues surrounding ppi. Not just Mis-selling as i keep on banging on. One is the non-disclosure of commissions relating to ppi. These are not commissions paid to the broker but commission paid to the lender. These commissions are not discussed in any documentation and are therefore "secret". A secret commission is deemed to be a special sort of fraud according to the judge in the Hurstanger v Wilson Appeal case. As there is a secret nature to this it will be section 33 of the limitations act and not 32. In other words, the six year time clock ticks from the point of discovery, not when the loan was taken out.

When you then start looking at the commissions and the implications of voidability then it opens up all sorts of possibilities.

The problem is that it requires the ability to challenge the lenders with court action to achieve success with these additional issues. As you know solicitors are not cheap and that is why it is imperative to use a service that provides you with the litigation option without fear of cost.

These issues are simply not covered by the ombudsman service so that route is limited.

Hence the requirement for an ethical legal facility to allow you to seek full compensation at little or no cost. That means no up front fees whatsoever and no fees at the completion or minimal fees depending on how much your compensation is.

If your claim is above £5000 you can utilise access to justice 2000 and levy your fees to the lender in addition to your claim amount.

Under £5000 you have little choice but to seek assistance through contingency, which is paying either a fixed fee or a percentage of your compensation.

It does seem strange justice that someone with £5000 worth of claim can get it for free and yet someone with only £4000 worth of claim has to potentially pay but that is British justice for you.

marshallka

Section 33 here

SECTION 33 LIMITATION ACT 1980

Under s33, the court has a wider power to 'disapply' the normal time-limits on actions in respect of personal injury and death. The Limitation Act 1980 lays down six guidelines for the exercise of this power:

(a) the length of and reasons for the claimant's delay;
(b) the extent to which the cogency of evidence adduced by either party might be affected by the delay;
(c) the defendant's conduct after the cause of action arose, including his response to requests by the claimant for information or inspection for the purpose of ascertaining relevant facts;
(d) the duration of a disability of the claimant after the cause of action arose;
(e) the extent to which the claimant acted promptly and reasonably once he knew whether or not the act or omission of the defendant might be capable of giving rise to an action for damages; and
(f) the steps taken by the claimant to obtain expert advice and the nature of the advice he received.


I thought this section was for personal injury or death??? Can you clarify further?

Are you sure its not that section 32???

petermb_2

masmit wrote: »

Peter,
Can you elaborate on the time barred, because i believe your specialist solicitors can.

Going back to your main point here. The problem if you are looking at straight mis-selling is that the legal fraternity are very cautious and dont want to lose cases. So although the time bar placed by FSA regulation is fairly irrelevant if you use the legal route there are time bars appearing in the latter. So if you have a loan that is current you can run a case if it is taken out after 2001.

If your loan is redeemded it must have been taken out after 2001 and redeemed in the last 6 years. This is on mis-selling alone.

As mentioned in the previous response there are other areas that will change the time bar situation altogether so it is difficult to state whether a specific loan is time barred or not and each case will be assessed on a case by case basis depending on say whether there was a broker involved or not, whether the loan is current or redeemend and also if it was secured on property or not.