PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Marshallka, can you clarify the "things that happen after 2007"

As I think that although my credit agreement was 2000, their failure to supply it etc was after 2007 which is why they took it on, is that right?

This complaint about not supplying the CCA goes to the ICO for them to deal with. Then to make a complaint to the FOS this type of complaint is a banking complaint and banking complaints were under jurisidcition if the firm were authorised by the FSA at that time or held a CCL only and the agreement was after 7th April, 2007

Financial Ombudsman Service and the Consumer Credit Act
2006
From 6 April 2007 the Financial Ombudsman Service will have jurisdiction over consumer credit disputes. All
firms holding a standard consumer credit licence from the Office of Fair Trading will be affected.
The Financial Ombudsman Service is an independent organisation with powers derived from the Financial
Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Act 2006. The procedures proposed for consumer
credit disputes are almost identical to those it already uses for complaints about financial services
companies.
What does this mean for my business?
The new jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service over consumer credit complaints means that you
must have in place and operate an effective complaints-handling procedure that complies with the rules.
The intention is that businesses should, wherever possible, attempt to resolve complaints themselves.
If you fail to have in place a compliant complaints-handling system, then your eligibility to hold a consumer
credit act licence may be affected.
What constitutes a compliant complaints-handling system?
Although subject to review towards the end of 2007, a compliant complaints-handling system will take into
account the following:
the time limits for dealing with complaints
the consumer’s ultimate right to refer any unresolved dispute to the Financial Ombudsman Service
The complaints-handling system must be:
in writing; the Ombudsman suggests that businesses produce a leaflet to summarise the procedure
publicised to customers at or immediately after the point of sale
fair consistent and prompt
Senior management must put controls in place to ensure that this happens. Recurrent or systemic problems
should be identifiable through management information and be remedied accordingly. Senior management
are also expected to train their staff to ensure all relevant employees are aware of and follow the procedure.
Where a complaint is upheld, ‘appropriate redress’ must be offered by the firm and honoured if accepted.
This does not always require financial compensation; an apology or rectification may be enough. Common
sense should prevail.
Page 2
On receiving a complaint, firms must supply the customer with a copy of their complaints procedure. ‘Eligible
complainants’ are also entitled to request and receive a copy.
Time limits
As with complaints about financial services firms, the Ombudsman will not consider a complaint until the firm
has had an opportunity to resolve it. Firms have up to eight weeks, but are expected to act as quickly as
possible.
On receiving a complaint, firms must acknowledge it promptly in writing and keep customers informed of
progress. A final response letter must be sent to the customer within the eight-week period. The letter
should set out the issues raised and your view of them. It should also say whether you: accept the complaint
(offering redress if appropriate); are offering redress without accepting the complaint; or rejecting the
complaint altogether (in which case you must give reasons for doing so).
The final response letter must inform the customer that he may refer the complaint to the Ombudsman within
six months. You must enclose a copy of the Ombudsman’s consumer leaflet, Your complaint and the
Ombudsman. Firms will need to maintain sufficient supplies of these leaflets as hard copy print-outs from
the Ombudsman’s website or photocopied leaflets are not satisfactory.
Who can complain?
Private individuals, small businesses, charities and trusts can complain to the Ombudsman. In certain
circumstances, someone who is not a firm’s customer is entitled to bring their complaint to the Ombudsman.
See also:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/consumer_credit.html

3

di3004

tfsdeth wrote: »

the thing is i feel silly now that i destroyed all my previous statments and letters & terms&conditions from Egg now because they told me they were terminating my account and would no longer be in contact with me, ive given up calling egg now because i just get put on hold or "directed to the right person" then cut off.:/

But ive also noticed that i have a barclay card that ive been paying some kind of insurance on that i didnt even know about! So maybe i can learn from Egg that i need to action this with my barclay card ay?
I LOVE this site its soo helpful, im only 22 but it makes me feel like im old and wise lol

Hun it does not matter if you have destroyed your paperwork, these firms keep your info/data on their system for at least 6 years, you have every right to these, they are yours.;)

We have all destroyed and shredded down old documents when we did not think we would need them again.

Don't give up hun, that is what they want you to do.

Now Pinknico have also suggested that you contact the FOS and see if they will write to them on your behalf, so hun you have nothing to lose here, I would go for it.:D

pinknico

Dreamer, I would try everything that you feel comfortable doing, send your letter to FISA and Freedom, it cant do any harm. Call your citizens advice bureau who will probably say court as well. Also ask about free legal advice because it used to be everyone was entitled to a free half hour and you could use this to see if you have a strong claim.
I have no experience with any of this so this is all just my opinion!!

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Dreamer, I would try everything that you feel comfortable doing, send your letter to FISA and Freedom, it cant do any harm. Call your citizens advice bureau who will probably say court as well. Also ask about free legal advice because it used to be everyone was entitled to a free half hour and you could use this to see if you have a strong claim.
I have no experience with any of this so this is all just my opinion!!

The claim is valid but because Dreamer left this for 4 years from 1st complaining then there is the problem... If it is the courts it could cost money to be thrown out under the Limitations act as the complainant was aware (and the complaint was actually made then choose what is added to it now, the complaint was made about misselling!!!) and no-one would want to throw away any more money...

marshallka

A bit more info about consumer credit complaints if the company was not authorised by the FSA. I do understand what you are saying Pinknico in that you are making a complaint about not supplying an agreement and the complaint is 2008 but don't know whether this matters or not...

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:lNCtmILo5sMJ:www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/introduction_consumercredit.pdf+consumer+credit+complaint+financial+ombudsman+not+supplying+agreement&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk

Perhaps have a read and let us know too....

I was explained to the other day that banking complaints or any kind were not under jurisidcition until the date they became authorised by the FSA or if they only had a CCL then the agreement had to be after 2007...


Which complaints can be dealt with under FOS?
The Financial Services Authority already regulates some consumer credit licensees. These licensees are currently covered by FOS’ “compulsory jurisdiction”. Complaints about the consumer credit activities of a business licensed by the OFT and also regulated by the FSA will be dealt with under this compulsory jurisdiction. A business that is licensed by the OFT but not regulated by the FSA will have these complaints dealt with under the new consumer credit jurisdiction.

pinknico

So the FOS must be looking into the part of the complaint that was that they tried to record a default against me without cause. Yes the ICO are looking into it all as well.

Which Magazine are also looking into the fact that La Redoute were not regulated in 2000 as part of their PPI campaign as I sent them all my correspondance ,I am sure they will only come back with the court route though.

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

So the FOS must be looking into the part of the complaint that was that they tried to record a default against me without cause. Yes the ICO are looking into it all as well.

Which Magazine are also looking into the fact that La Redoute were not regulated in 2000 as part of their PPI campaign as I sent them all my correspondance ,I am sure they will only come back with the court route though.

No-one had to be regulated to sell insurance in 2000 though... I would think the "record a default" complaint would be a banking type complaint and again they would only be able to look into this if they authorised by the FSA at the time of when they recorded the default which I take it they were...

marshallka

angelwillow wrote: »

Well after being away for a week I was hoping to get some good news on my return - no such luck!
Still nothing from HBOS and their six weeks is now up - but all I got from FOS was 'well they are busy and the six weeks we quote isn't a deadline'.
Asked about my other cases too since haven't heard much about any of them recently inc. the first ones from March - still awaiting an adjudicator.
Plus no reply as yet to my email enquiring about fast-tracking.

Sorry I got one letter about one of my later claims - 'will be in touch within 2 months'.

I take it the HBOS have been advised to pay you back in 6 weeks???

Its so annoying that you cannot make another complaint about this and that FOS does not have any clout in making them pay up....I think they should do...

di3004

Sorry to change the subject here folks, and sorry its not PPI related, if you followed the Xfactor last night, what did you think ?:rolleyes:

pinknico

My head hurts! There are so many different aspects to take into consideration for each complaint.

And why now are the FOS able to get a result on somecases dated 2000?