PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm

15. scale of awards

Financial compensation will often be the only appropriate form of redress. But there will sometimes be cases where we are likely to consider some other form of action to be more suitable. For example, we will sometimes require the financial business to issue an apology or to provide the consumer with an appropriate service which relates to the original problem.
Where the degree of distress, inconvenience or other non-financial loss is sufficient to warrant the award of compensation, the amount is likely to be modest. Most awards are for less than £300 and in only a small number of exceptional cases do awards exceed £1,000. Awards involving pain and suffering are likely to be higher than those involving distress or inconvenience.
Below are some examples to illustrate our general approach to making awards for distress and inconvenience and other non-financial losses. The cases reflect actual decisions made by ombudsmen. Assessing the appropriate amount to be awarded in individual cases depends on the circumstances of each case.
Generally, compensation awards for pain and suffering are likely to be higher than those involving distress and inconvenience. And, dependant on the consumer’s circumstances, repeated or aggravated errors may cause more distress and/or inconvenience than an isolated error – as reflected in the example case studies below.

di3004

continued from last posts of awards & compo/FOS

16. cases where the ombudsman awarded modest compensation (less than £300)

aMinor inconvenience caused by the financial business not getting the consumer's address right, despite a couple of requests, for two months. bMinor administrative error by the financial business which caused the consumer to write to/phone it a few times before the problem was sorted out. cMinor, but identifiable, delay by the financial business in paying out under a policy claim. dAdministrative error by the financial business which caused the consumer to write to/phone it a significant number of times before the problem was sorted out. eThe financial business lengthened by three weeks the time the consumer was unable to return home from alternative accommodation paid for by the financial business, following damage which had made the consumer's home uninhabitable.fTwo-month delay by the financial business in providing the surrender proceeds of a policy. gThe financial business caused the consumer to be without transport for two weeks when under the terms of the insurance it should have provided an alternative vehicle whilst the consumer's car was off the road as a result of an accident (travel costs incurred would be considered separately). hFailure by the financial business to provide information to the consumer, which it always knew it held, to enable him to sort the matter out with a third party. Issue remained outstanding for three months longer than it otherwise would. iDisappointment at being told that policy surrender proceeds were to be materially less than previously led to believe by the financial business. jMaterial distress arising from the financial business's continued failure to deal with an apparently eligible and potentially meritorious complaint.kMaterial delay arising from the financial business's failure to follow a settled FSA or ombudsman service approach, when it had every reason to believe it would be held liable.

17. cases where the ombudsman awarded significant compensation (£300 - £999)

aThe financial business (or contractors it appointed) caused the consumer personally to carry out significant cleaning or decoration following repairs by the appointed contractors.bLoss of opportunity for the consumer to make other investment arrangements because of the financial business's delay.cDisappointment that inheritance tax planning failed, or was not as outlined. Something would have been possible, but the results were debatable.dThe financial business's repeated errors caused serious and continuing embarrassment to the consumer over a significant period of time when trying to make payments using his credit card - after having been assured, on several occasions, that earlier problems had been resolved.eFollowing the death of the consumer's husband, the financial business repeatedly wrote to her husband – rather than to her – about the insurance claim.fDelay by the financial business in providing correct information about encashment of a bond for a year. The bond proceeds were needed by executor for distribution under will.gMaterial delay arising from the financial business's failure to follow settled FSA or ombudsman service approach when it had every reason to believe it would be held liable, and every reason to know that the prospective policy shortfall would be distressing to the consumer.hThe financial business failed to arrange and pay for alternative accommodation for the consumer and his young children following insured damage, causing them to remain in their property for a month without essential facilities.iExcessive intransigence by the financial business right from the start – ie failure to accept responsibility for its mistakes, frustrating the complaint process, and fighting the case through every stage in the ombudsman service, despite the ombudsman service pointing out at an early stage that the business was failing to follow a settled and published FSA or ombudsman service approach.jPolicy written in trust incorrectly by the financial business – where the error cannot be unravelled and/or legal advice was needed to offset unintended results of way trust written.kPension policy under-paid for a significant period, leading the consumer to suffer reduced living standards for a material period of time.

18. cases where the ombudsman awarded exceptional compensation (£1,000 or more)

aThe financial business wrongly ‘bounced’ a cheque drawn by a business customer on its account. The cheque was payable to the customer's main supplier, in the same business community. The cheque was paid several weeks later, but the business was caused significant embarrassment within the community and, until sorted out, risked substantial loss of business. The business's proprietor also had to spend a significant amount of time sorting the problem out, as well as reassuring other suppliers and customers – to try to stop the adverse effects of a whispering campaign.bRepair work by the financial business (or its appointed contractor) exposed the consumer and his family to health risks (eg from asbestos).cSignificant error by the financial business in connection with a pension policy, meaning that the consumer had to consider working again after initial retirement.dThe financial business wrongly disclosed the consumer's address to her violent estranged partner – it knew the circumstances, and about his violence. The partner subsequently broke into her home and assaulted her, causing her to spend several days in hospital.

marshallka

Of course, we can’t prioritise every case. But we will make special efforts to minimise delays where it is clear to us that:

• The consumer would face particular financial difficulties because of any delay. This might occur, for example, where:
  – the consumer is already experiencing severe financial hardship that would be alleviated by a positive outcome to their complaint;
  – there is an imminent threat of a lender taking possession of the consumer’s home;
  – a significant and damaging financial loss is expected to occur in the near future; or
  – the outcome of the complaint will decide the consumer’s main source of income.
• Any delay would add significantly to the distress and inconvenience suffered by a consumer – or would have an adverse effect on their health. This might occur, for example, because:
  – the consumer is seriously ill;
  – the outcome of the complaint will decide whether important medical treatment should be continued;
  – the consumer has been in temporary accommodation for an extended period – awaiting satisfactory repairs to their home; or
  – the viability of the consumer’s business is under real threat – as a result of issues that will be settled when the complaint is decided
• Any delays would add significantly to the distress and inconvenience suffered by the proprietors of a financial business. This could be of particular relevance in the case of a sole trader or other small business – where a decision to uphold a complaint could have a material impact on the continuing viability of the business.
• Our decision is significant to impending legal action.
• There is a risk of significant prejudice to the interests of the financial business or the consumer. This might occur, for example, because:
  – there is a debt that is not being repaid while we consider the case; or
  – the consumer is unable to obtain an important service as long as the dispute remains unresolved.

di3004

Marshallka I was thinking of the stressful situation you have been put in due to your case etc and you do need to think about this hun.;)

di3004

I often check this out: Case studies/FOS


http://213.121.208.42/query.html

if it does not come up there should be a search box, i add in "PPI case studies".

if any problem try this one, and above on right hand side, there is a search box, try to add in what you want there.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/index.htm

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Marshallka I was thinking of the stressful situation you have been put in due to your case etc and you do need to think about this hun.;)

But I created it Di and that is how they may look at it. (although certainly not on purpose!!) I don't want to make anything more of it now. They have made me look stupid here and probably I am going to be in the percentage of losers up above. I can't fight the Ombudsman. I just thought emailing them was OK and probably you cannot do that even when you ask for read receipts. I wish someone had told me everything has to be in writing before and then perhaps I would not be where I am now. Emails are out for me and telephone calls too leaving messages on voicemail. I assume now you are not allowed to get in touch with the adjudicator as they are probably too busy but would be nice if they could at least say on the answerphone bit that they will not be able to reply as they are too busy or that they are not taking phone calls so please do not leave a message. Sometimes all people want is a reassurance. I know i did.

di3004

annual review 2006/07
... up to 3,000 enquiries a day to our consumer helpline on this subject alone. There has also been significant media coverage of loan protection insurance, with a number of bodies launching inquiries into how this ...
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE][SIZE=-1]http://www.financial-ombudsman[/SIZE]

marshallka

Going to get some shut eye now Di but thanks for understanding today. I am a very anxious person and its my personality. I cannot change it and sometimes it gets the better of me. I will have to try and take breaks as its certainly not good for your health all this sitting. I used to be very active and am feeling it now but like you I have become addicted to this site and also helping people in the same boat. Just like i say, I think every now and again we all need a break from it.

Night Di xx

marshallka

pming you before so look out...

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

pming you before so look out...

Thanks hun, just sent you a pm back thanks hun, and my flipping server went down again......:mad: lol, computers !!!

Will read your other posts again now, you have a good night hun and if your up to it tomorrow will see ya then, but have a good night anyway hun and sleep well.;) :A

Di.
xx