Bank Upholds PPI Complaint then changes mind?

StirlingMouse

Hi all
I put in my PPI complaint a while back. I received a letter from LLoyds dated 9 August saying they have upheld the complaint and would pay me within 28 days.
A couple of weeks later I received a letter, dated 20 August, which looked like an automated letter apologising for not having replied to me yet saying they needed more time to look into it.
I thought it was an automated letter as they had already replied to me and it did not really say anything specific to my case, or say they wanted to look into it further or anything. It just says due to the high number of complaints at the moment they have not replied yet and would come to a decision in eight weeks but I could go to the ombudsman now if I wished.
I phoned today to ask when I could expect payment and the lady, who was in what sounded like a foreign call centre, says as I was sent this second letter she has to investigate whether I will get a payment or not.She has to query it and cannot say if she will call me back today or not.
This all seems very strange as I have a full itemised breakdown of what they are going to pay me and all the other details.
I would really appreciate any advice or thoughts as I am so confused now. Why have they sent me a letter saying they were upholding if they were still investigating. Hoping the second letter was an error.

societys_child

Why have they sent me a letter saying they were upholding if they were still investigating

I doubt anyone here knows. You'll have to wait and see.

[Deleted User]

StirlingMouse wrote: »

This all seems very strange as I have a full itemised breakdown of what they are going to pay me and all the other details.
Why have they sent me a letter saying they were upholding if they were still investigating. Hoping the second letter was an error.

Do you have defaults or outstanding debt with this lender? If so, it's often the case that any such debt is only clawed back after the complaint has been upheld and the customer accepted redress. That's because the Bank's insolvency team is not part of the complaints team.

Otherwise, it may well be a mistake due to the huge avalanche of late complaints. You'll just have to wait and see I'm afraid...

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

You'll have to wait and see.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You'll just have to wait and see

Great minds or fools seldom?

StirlingMouse

Nope I have no debts with them.Just wondered if anyone else had seen anything similar. Thanks for replying.

brettcta

It could have been picked up by quality assurance and they’ve spotted a problem with the investigation and it’s been reversed? The uphold letter may have been sent in error.

SonOf

StirlingMouse wrote: »

Nope I have no debts with them.Just wondered if anyone else had seen anything similar. Thanks for replying.

Yes. It happens relatively frequently.

First line checkers are usually sampled checked. First line checkers are not usually as qualified or experienced but cheaper to employ. The second line checkers doing sample checks tend to be more qualified and experienced.

I was involved in a review at a large company many years ago. It found just over 170 cases that may have been potentially missold (only on the basis of sales made between certain dates - nothing else). Those people were written to inviting them to complain if they felt they were missold. 75 responded asking for checks on the sales. The first line checkers on those deemed just over 50 of them unsuitable. They even generated the letters to go to the customer. The second line checks on all of these found errors by the first line checkers that led to the decision being changed from unsuitable to suitable on all but 3 of the cases (and two of those 3 was down to damaged pdf files that didn't confirm missale but because the documentation wasn't fully available they became auto unsuitable. And in a further twist. 2 of the 3 got no redress as it was found they were better off and the one that did get redress got just £23).

The first line checkers were employed by a FTSE100 company and the staff used were contract workers who were unqualified but following a checklist. Their quality was dreadful. The second line checkers were more qualified and experienced but not from the FTSE100 company. That same FTSE100 company has been used by banks in PPI file checks.

StirlingMouse

Thanks for the reply. So I should ignore the multi-page breakdown saying my complaint was being upheld and that they were paying me and closing the case and go with the second auto-generated letter that says they haven't replied to me at all yet? I'd understand it better if it said something like: "We have realised we need to look into your case again". Sorry for being dense, it's just all very odd. The second letter reads@
"Dear XXXX, We're still looking into your complaint about PPI. The PPI deadline of 29 August 2019 has prompted a very high number of complaints.
"I'm sorry there has been a delay in replying to you [I had actually already had the letter saying the complaint was upheld and the breakdown of the payment amount and I had a lengthy phone call with them before that]. I appreciate that you may feel let down, but we will give your complaint the attention it deserves. We expect to write to you with our decision in the next eight weeks [they have already had over eight weeks since the initial complaint]."
The letter then goes on to talk about the Ombudsman. No mention of the previous correspondences or offer at all. Which is why that second letter seems weird.

Gonna-be-debt-free

Is it the same reference number on both letters? Is is possible you had 2 different accounts with them and therefore they are treating it as 2 different complaints?

StirlingMouse

Same reference number.

StirlingMouse

Update on this. They are now saying the first letter saying that my complaint had been upheld was sent in error. There is no documentation that it should have been sent. Therefore I am to disregard it as they have flagged the matter up to their review team. It is possible the letter is correct but some documentation of this on their side is missing. They deny having a second team of reviewers who sample previous payouts to check them. I still don't get it. Either I meet the criteria or I don't? Sending it on to the Ombudsman on Monday anyway as they have already had over two weeks and ten days since they sent the second letter.