Newcastle Building Society PPI Claim

brettcta

Well that would form part of your appeal but if you’ve already made that point to the ombudsman and they’ve still rejected it then it’s a moot point. The only thing you can do at this juncture is wait for the decision of the additional review and go from there but it’s very unlikely to be overturned.

MC24

brettcta said:

Well that would form part of your appeal but if you’ve already made that point to the ombudsman and they’ve still rejected it then it’s a moot point. The only thing you can do at this juncture is wait for the decision of the additional review and go from there but it’s very unlikely to be overturned.

Yeah i understand it may appear that way but i still have hope and see the possibility off it being overturned. I just wanted to see if any further points could be added or written better to explain my point across as i feel it is quite scattered and in bits and pieces. But i genuinely appreciate everyones reply as bit by bit i'm being able to see things in a better light and helping me construct my point across better.

After that, whatever happens, happens and its not a issue. I just don't want to regret not giving it a good go and wasting time contemplating anything later. Once this is concluded i want to let it go completely, no matter the outcome. Thanks

jonesMUFCforever

I wish I could remember what I did 30 years ago. IMO It would be better if dad had come on here rather than us getting a 2nd hand version of events.
Good luck with your appeal - I can't see you winning here - and well done to NBS for keeping all the documents for such a long time making it easier for the ombudsman to come to a decision based on documents rather than 'he said this' they said 'something else'. etc.

MC24

jonesMUFCforever said:

I wish I could remember what I did 30 years ago. IMO It would be better if dad had come on here rather than us getting a 2nd hand version of events.
Good luck with your appeal - I can't see you winning here - and well done to NBS for keeping all the documents for such a long time making it easier for the ombudsman to come to a decision based on documents rather than 'he said this' they said 'something else'. etc.

It is very possible to recall memories and easily too, if a person had a awareness of how to wire their brain and how to use the tools they have within the human body properly - people basically do not pay enough attention inwards, and are constantly pointing their senses outwards to even know how to operate on a much higher level but thats another topic all together. I am just repeating what my dad has told me, so it doesn't involve any narratives from me. Every time a question has arisen, i have sought the answer from him directly and discussed it with him. 

Thanks for the best wishes. As for the documents, they do prove that the advisor had actually filled in the PPI part of the application and that the PPI leaflet that they claim to have given has not been dated, signed or named. 

dunstonh

It is very possible to recall memories and easily too, if a person had a awareness of how to wire their brain and how to use the tools they have within the human body properly

I remember a complaints handler once telling me that he couldnt keep count of the number of times someone said they were told something that "would" happen yet the audit trail shows the word "could".

Thanks for the best wishes. As for the documents, they do prove that the advisor had actually filled in the PPI part of the application and that the PPI leaflet that they claim to have given has not been dated, signed or named. 

It is worth repeating that it was not an adviser.   Had it actually been an adviser, the requirements for audit trail and suitability would have been higher.    And its usual for staff to fill in application forms.

brettcta

dunstonh said:

It is very possible to recall memories and easily too, if a person had a awareness of how to wire their brain and how to use the tools they have within the human body properly

I remember a complaints handler once telling me that he couldnt keep count of the number of times someone said they were told something that "would" happen yet the audit trail shows the word "could".

Thanks for the best wishes. As for the documents, they do prove that the advisor had actually filled in the PPI part of the application and that the PPI leaflet that they claim to have given has not been dated, signed or named. 

It is worth repeating that it was not an adviser.   Had it actually been an adviser, the requirements for audit trail and suitability would have been higher.    And its usual for staff to fill in application forms.

As a current complaints handler I can confirm this. ‘The documents clearly said this WAS NOT optional’ and when you check them it clearly states this is optional.

MC24

dunstonh said:

It is very possible to recall memories and easily too, if a person had a awareness of how to wire their brain and how to use the tools they have within the human body properly

I remember a complaints handler once telling me that he couldnt keep count of the number of times someone said they were told something that "would" happen yet the audit trail shows the word "could".

Thanks for the best wishes. As for the documents, they do prove that the advisor had actually filled in the PPI part of the application and that the PPI leaflet that they claim to have given has not been dated, signed or named. 

It is worth repeating that it was not an adviser.   Had it actually been an adviser, the requirements for audit trail and suitability would have been higher.    And its usual for staff to fill in application forms.

You cannot judge the whole by the handlers experience. I can recall things in detail from many years ago vividly down to specific words and minute details and theres many i can show you who can do the same. It is a skill, which if humans actually paid attention to and practiced, are very easily capable of. I would disagree with your comment and i think its best not to use that as a basis of anything. Just because the case handler has met a few that cant, doesn't mean he can make a conclusion based on past experience, he should look at it clearly and as it is - not based on past memory and conclusions. Such bias or conclusions only lead to not handling the case well due to subconscious biases or conclusions. Not saying memories cannot be used as they have their own uses and purpose, however they should not form any conclusion or basis based on that alone and facts should be looked at clearly on a case by case basis as each situation is unique.

Well he clearly had advised my dad to get PPI so his mortgage application would be more likely to be approved. Now he may not have the fancy title of being called a advisor, but that is what he did. The ombudsman in his finding did mention NBS could have made the information clearer to my dad - what information? it was non-existent but at least it points to the fact there was a lack of information - if any.

The fact that the staff filled in only the PPI part of the form says a lot, minus the staff only sections - there is a vast difference between my dads writing and the staffs writing as well as ticks.  The staff ticked the box, not my dad - and he ticked it after deceiving my dad who left it blank because neither did he want it or know what it was. It was only due to the staff members advise that my dad said yes and ONLY because he said it will be beneficial to get the mortgage application approved. 

dunstonh

You cannot judge the whole by the handlers experience

I also go to FOS meetings, carry out complaint handling training and read FOS decisions.  I also have 25 years of practical experience where I have seen people tell all sorts of stories that they believed to be true but were not.  I have seen the downright fraudulent (although "mistaken" would be the politically correct word to use).       I have seen the good and the bad but the middle ground is where most sit and that is that they just cannot remember the details.

Complaint handling very much works by the four truths principal.     What the person complaining says happened.  What the person/firm being complained about says happened.   What actually happened and What the evidence suggests happens.  All four are very often different.

 Such bias or conclusions only lead to not handling the case well due to subconscious biases or conclusions. Not saying memories cannot be used as they have their own uses and purpose, however they should not form any conclusion or basis based on that alone and facts should be looked at clearly on a case by case basis as each situation is unique.

The problem is that you have far too many consumers manipulating the complaints system for financial gain.    Firms and banks have reported over half of PPI complaints, which allege all sorts of wrongdoing about things said and done, didn't even have PPI.    So, whilst it would be really nice to believe everyone, the reality is that the bad lot out there spoil it for the good.

The fact that the staff filled in only the PPI part of the form says a lot, minus the staff only sections - there is a vast difference between my dads writing and the staffs writing as well as ticks.  

It says nothing. Applications have been filled in with all sorts of products for decades.  its considered the norm.

The staff ticked the box, not my dad - and he ticked it after deceiving my dad who left it blank because neither did he want it or know what it was. 

The problem with that argument is credibility.   If someone didn't tick the box to have it but found money being taken from their account without permission, they would usually raise a complaint quickly.   The longer time goes on, the less credible that argument becomes.

It was only due to the staff members advise that my dad said yes and ONLY because he said it will be beneficial to get the mortgage application approved. 

And that may be the reality.  But equally, it may have been a condition of the lending manager.  It may have been something else.    The balance of probability has to suggest it was missold and it hasn't crossed that threshold.

jonesMUFCforever

MC24 - how do you know all this - what went on 30 years ago - were you there?
The paper evidence has gone to NBS and found against you (sorry your father) then you quite rightly went to the ombudsman who found against you as well.
If your appeal fails what will you do? Will you sue? (If so who's money will be at risk?).

MC24

dunstonh said:

You cannot judge the whole by the handlers experience

I also go to FOS meetings, carry out complaint handling training and read FOS decisions.  I also have 25 years of practical experience where I have seen people tell all sorts of stories that they believed to be true but were not.  I have seen the downright fraudulent (although "mistaken" would be the politically correct word to use).       I have seen the good and the bad but the middle ground is where most sit and that is that they just cannot remember the details.

Complaint handling very much works by the four truths principal.     What the person complaining says happened.  What the person/firm being complained about says happened.   What actually happened and What the evidence suggests happens.  All four are very often different.

 Such bias or conclusions only lead to not handling the case well due to subconscious biases or conclusions. Not saying memories cannot be used as they have their own uses and purpose, however they should not form any conclusion or basis based on that alone and facts should be looked at clearly on a case by case basis as each situation is unique.

The problem is that you have far too many consumers manipulating the complaints system for financial gain.    Firms and banks have reported over half of PPI complaints, which allege all sorts of wrongdoing about things said and done, didn't even have PPI.    So, whilst it would be really nice to believe everyone, the reality is that the bad lot out there spoil it for the good.

The fact that the staff filled in only the PPI part of the form says a lot, minus the staff only sections - there is a vast difference between my dads writing and the staffs writing as well as ticks.  

It says nothing. Applications have been filled in with all sorts of products for decades.  its considered the norm.

The staff ticked the box, not my dad - and he ticked it after deceiving my dad who left it blank because neither did he want it or know what it was. 

The problem with that argument is credibility.   If someone didn't tick the box to have it but found money being taken from their account without permission, they would usually raise a complaint quickly.   The longer time goes on, the less credible that argument becomes.

It was only due to the staff members advise that my dad said yes and ONLY because he said it will be beneficial to get the mortgage application approved. 

And that may be the reality.  But equally, it may have been a condition of the lending manager.  It may have been something else.    The balance of probability has to suggest it was missold and it hasn't crossed that threshold.

Thanks for your reply, i am unaware of the procedure that the FOS uses and can only speak for my dad who has given me this information. I thank you for your time and explanations as it does bring better clarity to the procedures in place. While i may not agree with it fully, i can understand your point of view in certain areas and i agree many have spoilt it with wrongful claims. 

The only point i would bring across in regards to money being taken out the account is - it is taken in a lump sum - they do not take it out and say £12 is for ppi, £180 is for the mortgage etc. If this is a basis of argument to not uphold a claim, then i'm unsure why anyone ever got PPI refunded for loans or credit cards as if they looked on their bills they would have seen it wouldn't they? And that to for many many years.