RBS/Natwest PPI complaints and payouts.

Concerned75

Hi.
Just wondering if others have had a PPI claim against RBS/Natwest and was successful, without any hassle?

Long story short, I made a claim to Natwest in 2013, they accepted the mis sold PPI claim and offered me 2 payouts for different accounts. At the time, they only paid out one of the claims and told me the other one never had an acceptance form sent back from myself.
I was in a debt management agreement at the time, so whatever they 'paid' out was sent to them.
Fast forward to present year and I decided to chase up the 2nd accepted claim from Natwest.
After complying to all their requests; ID, proof of address, waiting 8 weeks, they told me all monies had already been paid out and there was nothing further on my accounts. I asked the advisor to send me the amount paid out, as a written statement. Still waiting for that paperwork through the post.
The issue is the amount that the advisor said was paid out is wrong. Roughly £2K short of what they originally accepted as mis sold and would refund, so I got onto the FO, who advised me to redress the complaint to Natwest on the discrepancy of payout amounts.
I'm now waiting to here back overall.

The Internet is littered of RBS being one of the most difficult and reluctant of the banks, to refund PPIs.
Is it any wonder, as they are 64% owned by the taxpayers!!
Contructive comments welcome.

[Deleted User]

Yes, people have had successful complaints.

dunstonh

The Internet is littered of RBS being one of the most difficult and reluctant of the banks, to refund PPIs.

There are always people that post rubbish on the internet.
looking at the last 6 months published data, PPi resolved in favour of consumer:
BoS 31%
Barclays 20%
UK Asset Resolution (B&B) 5%
HSBC 26%
Lloyds 16%
Natwest 14%

What you can see from that is that the taxpayer part/full owned ones actually have lower FOS uphold rates which indicates they are upholding more cases without the need to go to the FOS. i.e. not fighting as hard to reject.

Concerned75

What you can see from that is that the taxpayer part/full owned ones actually have lower FOS uphold rates which indicates they are upholding more cases without the need to go to the FOS. i.e. not fighting as hard to reject.

I hope that is the case with my claim, because I've got the FO on standby if they don't and this is an existing case with the time limit rapidly approaching!!....

[Deleted User]

Concerned75 wrote: »

this is an existing case with the time limit rapidly approaching!!....

Once your complaint is lodged, the "time limit" no longer applies. The August deadline applies only to new complaints.

You do realise, though, that the Ombudsman may not uphold your complaint either? FOS is not a consumer champion and no way are they "standing by". Your complaint will stand or fall based solely on it's own merits.

dunstonh

Concerned75 wrote: »

I hope that is the case with my claim, because I've got the FO on standby if they don't and this is an existing case with the time limit rapidly approaching!!....

There is no time limit for you. However, you do have to hope they uphold it as the current FOS uphold rate is very low. Meaning that statistically, you are unlikely to succeed in your complaint if the bank rejects it.

Concerned75

You do realise, though, that the Ombudsman may not uphold your complaint either? FOS is not a consumer champion and no way are they "standing by". Your complaint will stand or fall based solely on it's own merits.

Just to clear up this comment, I only put in the redress AFTER I was advised by the FO to do so. You're also reading my message wrong, I have them on standby, meaning that will be MY next move, if I cannot sort this out with RBS, not as you've interpreted it, that the FO is waiting on standby for me. No financial body would do that!!

[Deleted User]

Concerned75 wrote: »

I only put in (for) the redress AFTER I was advised by the FO to do so.

If you telephoned FOS, the advice from their call centre is nearly ALWAYS to make a complaint direct to the firm concerned, but( just because they told you to do that) it does not mean they agree your complaint should be upheld. They will have also told you that you can refer the complaint to FOS if it is rejected (or ignored) by the firm, but that does not guarantee success either, just that they will consider it.

Regardless, it won't have been anyone who actually adjudicates on complaints who you spoke to. Only if your complaint is actually referred to the Ombudsman will you get a qualified and official opinion on the merits of your case. You don't get an adjudication from their call centre!

I'm glad to hear, therefore, that you are not really under the impression that the Ombudsman is on "standby". FOS is the independent arbiter of complaints, but it is not a consumer champion and so you are not going to get a decision in your favour if the available evidence does not support it. Currently, FOS has not seen the Bank's evidence.

So, by all means complain and then refer to FOS if you are rejected, but don't expect the Ombudsman to support you simply because they advised you to complain.

NoviceVoice

Hi 
I made a claim for PPI against NatWest via RBS just before the deadline which was successful and they made an offer which I accepted. I have now received a text from them yesterday stating they were unable to process payment as they had to undertake further checks relating to arrears and insolvency. I had a loan and credit card with NatWest some 16 years ago, where I was mis-sold PPI on both products and got into financial difficulty and went into arrears on my accounts. NatWest sold my debt to a debt company to whom I then made monthly payments via a debt management plan. However I managed to re-mortgage and release some equity from my home and the Debt company accepted a reduced lump sum payment to clear the debt. My question is, can NatWest/RBS renege on their offer and not pay out on their PPI offer because of the circumstances in which the debt was cleared? Thanks for any clarity on this.

MrsCteach

Hello, 
I’ve received a letter to say I’m due a refund. I applied for the refund. The account was a joint account with my ex- husband and the account is still open. As I made the claim, is it OK for just me to sign the acceptance, do you think?

SonOf

NoviceVoice said:

Hi 
I made a claim for PPI against NatWest via RBS just before the deadline which was successful and they made an offer which I accepted. I have now received a text from them yesterday stating they were unable to process payment as they had to undertake further checks relating to arrears and insolvency. I had a loan and credit card with NatWest some 16 years ago, where I was mis-sold PPI on both products and got into financial difficulty and went into arrears on my accounts. NatWest sold my debt to a debt company to whom I then made monthly payments via a debt management plan. However I managed to re-mortgage and release some equity from my home and the Debt company accepted a reduced lump sum payment to clear the debt. My question is, can NatWest/RBS renege on their offer and not pay out on their PPI offer because of the circumstances in which the debt was cleared? Thanks for any clarity on this.

What makes you think they sold the debt on?  - Most banks will use the services of third party debt collectors but that does not mean they have actually the sold the debt to them.   Sometimes they have. Sometimes they have not.  

In your case, the debt was not cleared.  They accepted a reduced amount but a portion of the debt is unpaid.

If it was not sold on OR if it was sold on but had the right of clawback, then the bank can set off the redress against any unpaid debt that defaulted or had amounts written off as part of an agreed settlement.
If it was sold on but has no right of clawback, then the bank cannot set it off against the unpaid debt.
The FOS position on the right of set of on sold on debts is well known by the banks.   Which is why some of them set up claw back agreements with the debt collection companies if they did not have that already.  So, you would expect the bank is correctly applying the rules in this case.  A mistake is possible and you can ask them to clarify but dont get your hopes up.