PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

tiggrae wrote: »

won't the FOS have copies of your loan agreement then

What it was when we were complaining about the Nemo loan with the FOS we only provided the evidence from Nemo, because this was a new loan (loan advance).
We did not learn about the mis selling until we had taken out the loan advance and realised that we had grounds of complaint. They only requested for evidence of documents from Nemo, not from the first loan with the brokers.

We did get in touch with them (FOS) at one point whilst they were going through our case and explained about the first one, they wrote back and said we were free to pursue these on a separate complaint as they were 2 different loans etc.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Yes hun the agreement went into the FSCS but when actually taking this policy it was then passed over to the lender Nemo for them to send, so it was with Nemo's logo !!
Everything else is all underwriters paperwork and of course Eloan are unable to supply me with any further info due to them not in business anymore, as requested......

Already won a claim against nemo for the loan advance mis sale of the policy, that is when we learnt afterwards about the mis selling of the ppi also due to the media, and the FOS states in his paperwork we should try to pursue the brokers on the mis selling of the first ppi......

What do you mean "won with loan advance mis sale" Di

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

What do you mean "won with loan advance mis sale" Di

The loan advance is classed as a new loan, so in other words because the provider of this was Nemo (lender then), these were responsible for the sale of the 2nd loan and said we had to have the PPI because we had this on the first loan arranged by the brokers, the disc recording disclosed all this to the FOS, where he states in his findings that we were pressured into taking this product and this should have been treated as a separate policy to the first one, whether we had ppi or not on the first one.

Nemo tried to blame the brokers, for the 2nd sale and the ombudsman said this loan is nothing to do with the sale of the first loan arranged by the brokers, so this is why since we have been trying to reclaim on the brokers of Twopart/eloan.

Back to front reclaim really but as I said we dealt with nemo first because we were still with them at that time, but if we had learnt on the mis selling earlier when having the first loan we would have complained of these by now.

di3004

Looking back on my SAR (NEMO), there is something I read in one of their comments made by the sale adviser, she states
"they tried to cancel the ppi and I managed to talk them out of it, hehehe" !!!!:eek:

Shocking I say !!!!!

pinknico

So if I have to take my Future Mortgages to the FOS can I put in two complaint forms at the same time one on rebate (2006) and one for mis selling (2003) in case the mis selling is not in their jurisdiction?

di3004

pinknico wrote: »

So if I have to take my Future Mortgages to the FOS can I put in two complaint forms at the same time one on rebate (2006) and one for mis selling (2003) in case the mis selling is not in their jurisdiction?

I would do this separately to be honest, just in case hun.;)

angelwillow

marshallka wrote: »

Hi, i would say this is an email wanting you to fight a bit more or a stalling method used whereby they know you can go the FOS and they get to keep the money a little longer.

Think you are right on the second bit. After me asking for a final response,today I received an email saying they don't given final responses unless asked to by the FOS!
FOS have said that's a new one on them but they will do it. Hope it's just delaying tactics and that the FOS have more luck than me - having said that the 8 weeks from initial letter is now up anyway.

di3004

Todays media news:"Thisismoney"


The Financial Ombudsman Service has urged a crack down on loans insurance mis-selling after receiving 500 payment protection insurance complaints a week.
Confusion reigns: millions of customers fail to cancel PPI because they do not know their rights.




Avoid the rip-off by finding a stand-alone policy. They can be 85% cheaper than the banks. > Cheap PPI deals



It has expressed concerns that the financial industry is failing to tackle serious problems with PPI sales and has written to the Financial Services Authority to spark further investigation.

The Ombudsman said complaints had risen tenfold in two years and now accounted for a quarter of the problems brought before it.
The sale of PPI has attracted much controversy since major complaints over the product started to emerge three years ago.

The Competition Commission proposed a clampdown on its sale in June, after it found millions had been sold inappropriate policies or had the cover added on without their consent.
Traditionally sold alongside credit cards, mortgages and loans, the insurance is designed to pay-out in the event the customer is unable to meet their minimum payments.
However experts believe over 2m people have been mis-sold PPI over the past five years and would not be able to claim on policies that can add significantly to the cost of a loan and only pay out in particular circumstances.
The FOS writing to the FSA triggers further investigation. The FSA will consider the written request at a board meeting later this month.
The Ombudsman Service is worried that the £5.5bn-a-year PPI market is getting out of control. Not only is mis-selling of the product widespread, but consumers do not know of their rights regarding the policy: they are unaware they can shop around and do not have to accept the policy offered to them by their lender.
Many also believe it is compulsory, when it is not. Consumer organisation Which? has claimed 1.3m people bought PPI when taking out a credit card under the mistaken belief that it was compulsory.
As a result of this, the Competition Commission proposed a ban on PPI sales at the time a loan or credit card is taken out. As a result of the FOS's move, the Watchdog could either force change on sale of the product or ask the Treasury to authorize an industry-wide review.

marshallka

angelwillow wrote: »

Think you are right on the second bit. After me asking for a final response,today I received an email saying they don't given final responses unless asked to by the FOS!
FOS have said that's a new one on them but they will do it. Hope it's just delaying tactics and that the FOS have more luck than me - having said that the 8 weeks from initial letter is now up anyway.

It seems to me that firms are now leaving everything to the very last minute probably knowing you will win in order to keep the money for longer.

di3004

And more PPi/FSA news in todays money/AOL headlines

http://money.aol.co.uk/plan-to-tackle-insurance-complaints/article/20080911064832210432064

This bit I find interesting.

In writing to the FSA about the issue the FOS has triggered the so-called "wider implications" procedure, under which the FSA will consider if taking wider regulatory action is a better option than the ombudsman deciding individual cases.
The FSA said: "The FSA is reviewing the position in the light of the information it has received from the ombudsman service, and the information provided by its own ongoing thematic work on PPI. It will make a decision on possible measures to take on the basis of this review in due course.