PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Tiggrae, check out what singlep says about your post on the page before. We are all confused here

tiggrae

singlep wrote: »

I do not understand the view that the date of the unfair rebate rather than the date the PPI was sold is the key date. On what basis and where is this stated? I can find nothing in the FSA Dispute Resolution Handbook or the transitioning rules etc to confirm this? Even though FSA has given guidance on post Jan 05 sales there is little precedent on what is unfair for the purpose of complaints. I am not confident that FOS has jurisdiction here. I would pursue this on Unfair Contract Terms basis as advisers failed to act in customer's best interest, Misrepresentation etc etc.

for the purposes of di's case here - Endeavour did not come under the jurisdiction of the FOS when she was mis sold the PPI - however, when the unfair rebate was applied which was in November 05 they did. After speaking to the FOS about unfair rebates (ie after the FSA produced their findings on unfair refunds on single premium insurances see - Refunds of Single Premium Payment Protection Insurance ) then the FOS have stated they will look at this type of complaint - afterall if the FSA think they're unfair then who are we to argue - they are the UK's Leading Authority on financial matters and do now regulate the whole of the finance market

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

for the purposes of di's case here - Endeavour did not come under the jurisdiction of the FOS when she was mis sold the PPI - however, when the unfair rebate was applied which was in November 05 they did. After speaking to the FOS about unfair rebates (ie after the FSA produced their findings on unfair refunds on single premium insurances see - Refunds of Single Premium Payment Protection Insurance ) then the FOS will look at this type of complaint

Singlep had not heard of this. Then that means we are right to go to FOS if the settlement date is after Jan 2005. What are the dates of relevance here.

Is it from Jan 2005 onwards or from whenever the firm became regulated by the FSA. If its the latter then people can make complaints for unfair rebates further back if its within 6 years and they were regulated at that time.:j:j :j

These complaints are not about the selling of insurance but for unfair terms in contracts and misrepresentation etc. Was this under the FSA before Jan 2005 if the firm was regulated and elegible for complaints to FOS????

di3004

tiggrae wrote: »

no di A&L plc were registered on 01/12/2001

Thanks Tiggrae for checking on this.;)
It is good news for Jingle68.

I just added the A&L company in the register but I came up with quite a list, some were and some were not registered, so obviously I had looked at the wrong one .

Jingle68 hope you get back here to read these posts, you have grounds for complaint and if you have to you can forward your complaint to the financial ombudsman service.;)
Thanks to Tiggrae for checking this out for you.;)

Di.
x

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Singlep had not heard of this. Then that means we are right to go to FOS if the settlement date is after Jan 2005. What are the dates of relevance here.

in my view - and this is only my view - for all organisations which were regulated prior to 2005 (ie from 2001 onwards) their contract terms should not be unfair to their consumers - and they had an obligation under 'old' ICOB 5.1.4 - from the 'old' FSA Handbook (which I think has been in place since the FSA came into being - I could be wrong there as I can't find astart date - please correct me if I'm wrong) - they had a duty to disclose any material facts - if they wrote into their contact you would get either nothing or very little, then not only is this an unfair contract term, they should have been made this clear to their customers, as to me it is a material fact - therefore, again in my opinion, the FOS can investigate this type of complaints prior to 2005 (i.e. but ONLY for those firms who came under their jurisdiction before 15.01.2005) and obviously after 2005 for those firms which then came under their jurisdiction

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

in my view - and this is only my view - for all organisations which were regulated prior to 2005 (ie from 2001 onwards) their contract terms should not be unfair to their consumers - and they had an obligation under 'old' ICOB 5.1.4 - from the 'old' FSA Handbook (which I think has been in place since the FSA came into being - I could be wrong there as I can't find astart date - please correct me if I'm wrong) - they had a duty to disclose any material facts - if they wrote into their contact you would get either nothing or very little, then not only is this an unfair contract term, they should have been made clear as it clear to their customers, as to me it is a material fact - therefore, again in my opinion, the FOS can investigate this type of complaints prior to 2005 (i.e. but ONLY for those firms who came under their jurisdiction before 15.01.2005)

That is how i have read this from these handbook things and the rules etc and jurisdiction of complaints, (A bit above me i know) but i wanted to find out. If this is the case then all these people being fobbed off with "there is nothing you can do, take it like man" have another option if they don't want to try the courts in that they can make a complaint for an unfair rebate. Its certainly better than nothing.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

That is how i have read this from these handbook things, (A bit above me i know) but i wanted to find out. If this is the case then all these people being fobbed off with "there is nothing you can do, take it like man" have another option if they don't want to try the courts in that they can make a complaint for an unfair rebate. Its certainly better than nothing.

to me yes - like with Di if she can't get her money back through the FOS for mis selling then she should be able to go for the unfair contract term - which again this is only my view you should be able totake that type of complaint to the FOS especially after the FSA's findings on single premium rebates - that document is excellent and VERY clear - whoever wrote it you can almost read their distaste for the underhand theivary which has taken place for far to long !!!

jingle68

Originally Posted by tiggrae
no di A&L plc were registered on 01/12/2001

Thanks Tiggrae for checking on this.;)
It is good news for Jingle68.

I just added the A&L company in the register but I came up with quite a list, some were and some were not registered, so obviously I had looked at the wrong one .

Jingle68 hope you get back here to read these posts, you have grounds for complaint and if you have to you can forward your complaint to the financial ombudsman service.;)
Thanks to Tiggrae for checking this out for you.;)

Di.
x

thankyou very much, i just need to find a way of obtaining my loan info or even getting a reply from A&L despite sending 2 recorded delivery letters??

just traced through CreditExpert the following

Alliance & Leicester Personal Finance
loan started 08/12/2001
loan settled 09/01/2006
loan amount £5000
Repayments £145 over 48 months
total repaid £6960

I cant remember the interest rate so i dont know how much of a claim for mis-selling i have if i can trace the loan account details


jingle68

singlep

marshallka wrote: »

That is how i have read this from these handbook things and the rules etc and jurisdiction of complaints, (A bit above me i know) but i wanted to find out. If this is the case then all these people being fobbed off with "there is nothing you can do, take it like man" have another option if they don't want to try the courts in that they can make a complaint for an unfair rebate. Its certainly better than nothing.

ICOB only became law on 14.01.05 in the UK and resulted from the IMD, the Insurance Mediation Directive, for all EU countries. Prior to that date the FSA did not have any control over GI but "complaint transitioning" was permitted in respect of GISC members who were the GI larger firms. There is some confusion because the ABI had a voluntary code prior to 05. But you can apply unfair contract terms etc prior to Jan 05 but you need to do that against the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself. That's is where the complaint mgmt cos should concentrate prior to 05. I can assure you you will not win at FOS prior to 05 if the firm was not in their jurisdiction

marshallka

singlep wrote: »

ICOB only became law on 14.01.05 in the UK and resulted from the IMD, the Insurance Mediation Directive, for all EU countries. Prior to that date the FSA did not have any control over GI but "complaint transitioning" was permitted in respect of GISC members who were the GI larger firms. There is some confusion because the ABI had a voluntary code prior to 05. But you can apply unfair contract terms etc prior to Jan 05 but you need to do that against the loan that paid the premium and not the ppi itself. That's is where the complaint mgmt cos should concentrate prior to 05. I can assure you you will not win at FOS prior to 05 if the firm was not in their jurisdiction

So how do you word the complaint. I have put my complaint about an unfair rebate on ppi of a loan that i had to pay a PPI premium. Is that ok. I also have put one for miselling of another loan on the same form but have spoken to FOS about it and it may come back to me. I feel annoyed that if it comes back to me i may have to start over again and then be back in FOS queue.