We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Studio Cards / Express Gifts PPI
Comments
-
The OP’s complaint is on hold-it hasn’t been rejected.
Because they're considering a Plevin pay out. A PPI complaint is not put on hold for Plevin, Plevin is completely irrelevant to a PPI complaint unless the payout is rejected so they have to consider it. If the complaint was still in progress then they wouldn't need to mention Plevin as a win means the whole premium is paid back so no need to consider it. Fairly basic processSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
The OP stated in her original post.Because they're considering a Plevin pay out. A PPI complaint is not put on hold for Plevin,
Evidently Studio Cards consider that the OP has the type of complaint referred to in CP18/18 and put her complaint on hold.Lorraine856 wrote: »I lately received a letter through the post quoting Plevin but also saying that the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have recently published a consultation paper, "Guidance on Regular Premium PPI Complaints and Recurring Non disclosure of Commission". Studio say that as this paper is just a "consultation" paper, the FCA has requested that firms put on hold this type of complaint until they issue a Policy Statement, which is expected "late Autumn 2018".
That doesn't make any sense. The letter quoted Plevin. Of course, the complaint is still in progress. But it is on hold. The letter was a 1.6.2R response to OP’S PPI complaint explaining why Studio Cards are not able to make a final response and indicating when they expect to be able to provide one. You are aware of the “type of complaint” that Studio Cards are referring to?If the complaint was still in progress then they wouldn't need to mention Plevin as a win means the whole premium is paid back so no need to consider it.
You haven't responded to the rest of my post regarding your statement to the OP.
.The FCA is consulting on Plevin and whether the full commission should be refunded or just the excess over 50%. If they rule the former, any Plevin complaints will get a bigger refund than the latter.
The FCA is NOT considering that full commission should to be refunded or just the excess over 50%.
Which FCA consultation and guidance are you referring to?
I reiterate that the FCA responded to the Manchester County Court’s ruling in the Doran case “We have always said that different courts could take a different approach. However, it remains our view that our approach has been fair and appropriate,”
The consultation paper that the OP refers to doesn’t have anything to do with the result of the Doran case.
The FCA stated in their press release that CP18/18 had “no relation to the outcome of recent court cases”0 -
I think the OP of this thread has already been answered fully and comprehensively. His complaint remains on hold subject to forthcoming FCA guidance on the subject of a possible Plevin payout. It goes without saying that, if he remains in line for a Plevin refund, his actual PPI complaint is destined to fail.
All the subsequent point-scoring "discussion" is of no help to the OP.0 -
I don’t need to score points.Moneyineptitude wrote: »I think the OP of this thread has already been answered fully and comprehensively. His complaint remains on hold subject to forthcoming FCA guidance on the subject of a possible Plevin payout. It goes without saying that, if he remains in line for a Plevin refund, his actual PPI complaint is destined to fail.
All the subsequent point-scoring "discussion" is of no help to the OP.
My posts follow forum rules and are factual.
To advise the OP that “the FCA is consulting on Plevin and whether the full commission should be refunded or just the excess over 50%. If they rule the former, any Plevin complaints will get a bigger refund than the latter” factually incorrect and very misleading.”
I believe the OP was asking about CP18/18 and I answered accordingly.0 -
I don’t need to score points.
My posts follow forum rules and are factual.
To advise the OP that “the FCA is consulting on Plevin and whether the full commission should be refunded or just the excess over 50%. If they rule the former, any Plevin complaints will get a bigger refund than the latter” factually incorrect and very misleading.”
I believe the OP was asking about CP18/18 and I answered accordingly.
I removed any reference to that in subsequent replies as it was apparently wrong according to you. Repeating it 3x after seems to be "points scoring".
As above, the letter from the lender specifically mentions a Plevin payout, the complaint of a PPI miss-sale is thus rejected. Again to make it clear, if a PPI complaint is upheld there is no reason AT ALL to even mention Plevin, let alone wait for the FCA consultation because an upheld complaint means a full refund of all the PPI payments + associated interest (which includes the Plevin PPI commission) so Plevin does not apply as the commission was already refunded.
To quote the FCA to prove I am correctIf you had PPI, the money for this commission would come out of the payments you made for the policy.
QED a successful complaint and refund includes the Plevin commission, thus no need to consider Plevin as it will already be refunded.
Plevin is ONLY considered where a PPI complaint fails and a decision on what they need to pay back commission wise is needed.
To quote the FCASuccessful complaints about mis-selling of PPI
If you previously complained about mis-selling of PPI and were refunded some or all of the money you’ve paid, you will not get back more money if you now complain about commission earned from the sale of the same PPI policy.
This is because there is no remaining loss that you need to claim back.
https://www.fca.org.uk/ppi/eligible-claim-commissionSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Hi.
Many thanks for posting here. I am also dealing with this business and am in similar situation so this information is helpful. Sports Direct/Mike Ashley is a major shareholder and I boycot all these brands. I will never buy another thing from Studio/Ace/Express Gifts/Findel. If he thinks we are happy for pay £5 delivery for tat, think on, we aint.0 -
I have only mentioned the OP’s PPI complaint with reference to the proposed guidance as being on hold.As above, the letter from the lender specifically mentions a Plevin payout, the complaint of a PPI miss-sale is thus rejected. Again to make it clear, if a PPI complaint is upheld there is no reason AT ALL to even mention Plevin, let alone wait for the FCA consultation because an upheld complaint means a full refund of all the PPI payments + associated interest (which includes the Plevin PPI commission) so Plevin does not apply as the commission was already refunded.
The FCA Consultation Paper CP18/18 July 2018 Guidance on regular premium PPI complaints and recurring non-disclosure of commission states
“Until the outcome of our consultation, we ask firms not to reach or send reject decisions concerning PPI complaints that our proposed guidance would apply to. Firms should explain this clearly to the complainants (as required by DISP 1.6.2R).” All my comments refer to this type of complaint.
You introduced and have commented on the mis-selling aspect of a PPI complaint.
While these links and quotes are rather random, they may be useful to someone who is considering making a PPI complaint. In fact I have recently posted links to the FCA PPI website on this board.To quote the FCA to prove I am correct
QED a successful complaint and refund includes the Plevin commission, thus no need to consider Plevin as it will already be refunded.
Plevin is ONLY considered where a PPI complaint fails and a decision on what they need to pay back commission wise is needed.
To quote the FCA
https://www.fca.org.uk/ppi/eligible-claim-commission
A few years ago I had several mis-selling complaints for PPI policies attached to loans and an overdraft facility upheld. Last year I used the DISP Appendix 3 Handling Payment Protection Complaints DISPApp3.3A to make a successful Plevin complaint.
So I am fully aware of the PPI complaint handling rules and guidance.
Perhaps the soon to be published results of CP18/18 will result in redress for the OP but it won't be the full commission as you suggested it might be at post #90 -
I have only mentioned the OP’s PPI complaint with reference to the proposed guidance as being on hold.
The FCA Consultation Paper CP18/18 July 2018 Guidance on regular premium PPI complaints and recurring non-disclosure of commission states
“Until the outcome of our consultation, we ask firms not to reach or send reject decisions concerning PPI complaints that our proposed guidance would apply to. Firms should explain this clearly to the complainants (as required by DISP 1.6.2R).” All my comments refer to this type of complaint.
You introduced and have commented on the mis-selling aspect of a PPI complaint.
While these links and quotes are rather random, they may be useful to someone who is considering making a PPI complaint. In fact I have recently posted links to the FCA PPI website on this board.
A few years ago I had several mis-selling complaints for PPI policies attached to loans and an overdraft facility upheld. Last year I used the DISP Appendix 3 Handling Payment Protection Complaints DISPApp3.3A to make a successful Plevin complaint.
So I am fully aware of the PPI complaint handling rules and guidance.
Perhaps the soon to be published results of CP18/18 will result in redress for the OP but it won't be the full commission as you suggested it might be at post #9
As per last post, I did not repeat that claim as you said it was wrong. Show me where I have said you were wrong and I was right on that?
For the third, fourth? time - the OP PPI complaint has been rejected. It is on hold to see if a Plevin payout is required following the FCA consultation. The complaint would not go on hold as a result of the FCA consultation if it was live or if it was accepted as per the quotes I provided you from the FCA which confirm what I said was correct - OP will not get a refund of PPI as the complaint is rejected, they may, subject to the ruling, get a refund of commission to some degree or other, whether the excess over 50% or otherwise.
There is no reason at all to put a complaint on hold unless it's for Plevin as a successful complaint would get back the Plevin money as part of the refund.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Hi everyone, It wasn't my intention to cause any conflict and so sorry for not replying sooner. To clear up any confusion, this is exactly what the letter says:
In November 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Plevin that the failure by the lender to disclose to Mrs Plevin the large commissions payable out of her Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) premuim made its relationship with her unfair under s. 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The judgement said that the non disclosure of the large commission payable at the point of sale, meant that an unfair relationship existed between us and the insurer.
As the insurance was purchased before the 6th April 2007 (the effective date of the change in law) there was no requirement on firms to disclose the rates of commission received in line with the other financtial service providers, we were mindful to reject these complaints as "not being in scope". However, the financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently published a consultation paper "Guidance on regular premium PPI complaints and recurring non-disclosure of commission" which in effect is suggesting that if we did not inform you of the commission rates on or after the 6th April 2007 then firms should consider these "in scope" for redress.[/U]
As this paper is just a "consultation" paper, the FCA has requested that firms put on "hold" these types of complaints until they issue a Policy Statement (new rules). The FCA have said that the Policy Statement is expected to be published in late Autumn 2018.
You can review the consultation paper by visiting..........
We believe that your complaint is affected, and whilst we are awaiting the publication of the Policy Statement and how this could impact your complaint, we are not in a position to issue our final decision. We apologise for this delay but unfortunately, we do have to wait until the FCA issues the new rules and guidance.
Once the Policy Statement has been published we will write to you with our Final Response. As mentioned previously this is expected to be late Autumn 2018. If for any reason the FCA delays the publication of the Policy Statement we will write to you again in order to let you know.
You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge.
Although there are time limits for referring your complaint to the Ombudsman, we may consent to the Ombudsman considering your complaint even if you refer the complaint outside the time limits, until we have been able to issue with a final decision.
I started my complaint to them via Resolve on 21st July 2018. I have got invoices showing PPI payments being paid for and I have sent them with my complaint.
I haven't had a claim rejected by them.....I just haven't had a decision either way.
My original question was to ask if anyone else has seen this type of letter before? Does anyone know if the FCA's Policy Statement has been released? Surely, its late Autumn now?
I guess I'll just have to wait it out and keep my fingers crossed.
Thank you for your time everyone.
Lorraine :-)0 -
Lorraine856 wrote: »Hi everyone, It wasn't my intention to cause any conflict and so sorry for not replying sooner. To clear up any confusion, this is exactly what the letter says:
In November 2014, the Supreme Court ruled in Plevin that the failure by the lender to disclose to Mrs Plevin the large commissions payable out of her Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) premuim made its relationship with her unfair under s. 140 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The judgement said that the non disclosure of the large commission payable at the point of sale, meant that an unfair relationship existed between us and the insurer.
As the insurance was purchased before the 6th April 2007 (the effective date of the change in law) there was no requirement on firms to disclose the rates of commission received in line with the other financtial service providers, we were mindful to reject these complaints as "not being in scope". However, the financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has recently published a consultation paper "Guidance on regular premium PPI complaints and recurring non-disclosure of commission" which in effect is suggesting that if we did not inform you of the commission rates on or after the 6th April 2007 then firms should consider these "in scope" for redress.[/U]
As this paper is just a "consultation" paper, the FCA has requested that firms put on "hold" these types of complaints until they issue a Policy Statement (new rules). The FCA have said that the Policy Statement is expected to be published in late Autumn 2018.
You can review the consultation paper by visiting..........
We believe that your complaint is affected, and whilst we are awaiting the publication of the Policy Statement and how this could impact your complaint, we are not in a position to issue our final decision. We apologise for this delay but unfortunately, we do have to wait until the FCA issues the new rules and guidance.
Once the Policy Statement has been published we will write to you with our Final Response. As mentioned previously this is expected to be late Autumn 2018. If for any reason the FCA delays the publication of the Policy Statement we will write to you again in order to let you know.
You have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, free of charge.
Although there are time limits for referring your complaint to the Ombudsman, we may consent to the Ombudsman considering your complaint even if you refer the complaint outside the time limits, until we have been able to issue with a final decision.
I started my complaint to them via Resolve on 21st July 2018. I have got invoices showing PPI payments being paid for and I have sent them with my complaint.
I haven't had a claim rejected by them.....I just haven't had a decision either way.
My original question was to ask if anyone else has seen this type of letter before? Does anyone know if the FCA's Policy Statement has been released? Surely, its late Autumn now?
I guess I'll just have to wait it out and keep my fingers crossed.
Thank you for your time everyone.
Lorraine :-)
Lorraine - this letter means your complaint has been rejected, they are now waiting for the FCA consultation to go through and then determine what they need to repay you (if anything) for the commission (there is a link to the paper in this thread). If the complaint was accepted you get the money from the commission back included in the refund so they don't need to put it on hold.
You may get a refund of something from Plevin, you may not depending on what they rule.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards