PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

di3004

Think I may have already added this but this was the letter from the FOS about Endeavour when we asked if they could look at this "unfair rebate" complaint.


Dear Mr & Mrs XXXXX

YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT ENDEAVOUR PERSONAL FINANCE LIMITED

Thank you for contacting us.

As this is a "NEW" complaint I have allocated a NEW reference which is XXXXXXX.

I should explain that you may be eligible to complain about the "Unfair settlement/rebate.

But before we can consider a complaint, the business concerned must have been given a chance to put things right.
I would therefore suggest contacting the business with details of your complaint.

Their address:
Sirs
Endeavour Personal Finance Limited Limited
Central Complaints Department
PO BOX 3607
Birmingham
B1 2XJ

The business should issue their final response in writing within 8 weeks of the date they receive your complaint. On receipt of business's final response, if your feel they have not put things right, or alternatively, if you have not heard from them after those 8 weeks, please complete the enclosed complaint form, and send it to us along with any supporting documentation including copy of the original agreement.



They have sent the form along with the letter, this saves me doing this online now lol and have already added a bit in for me where is states
"Please tell us what your complaint is about", the consumer consultant added:
Unhappy with unfair settlement of the insurance. Customer believes the rebate was incorrect - this is not connected to the previous complaint ref XXXXXXX.

(Because the other complaint about the mis selling was sent back to us - and this is a different complaint)
And the date was added in the date box for us, at NOV 2005.

di3004

Marshallka

If this is the case then you should have the same reply as us.;)

Fingers crossed because what goes for one in the same circumstances should go for another.;)

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Marshallka

If this is the case then you should have the same reply as us.;)

Fingers crossed because what goes for one in the same circumstances should go for another.;)

I really hope you are right Di. It just seems strange not to have heard anything yet other than the "Yes" we have received your complaint. I did ring Thursday and was told someone would be in touch but nothing Thursday or Friday. I was also told the other week that there was "activity" on the complaint. Fingers crossed. We really need this.

Although, I am confused here about the wording that FOS have used in unfair settlement/rebate as I have now only worded it unfair rebate as my one that stated unfair settlement was passed to an adjudicator and thrown back to me. I then thought it was because i used the words of unfair settlement. I am so blummin confused with this one as in my letter from the adjudicator he stated that he could not look into this complaint as Firstplus only became under their jurisdiction in January, 2005 and yet they were members of the GISC in November 2001. I will just have to wait and see. Maybe the first adjudicator got things wrong here. Maybe thats the problem. (wishful thinking ey!!!!)

di3004

Will be seeing dad-in-law down the hospital this evening, leave here approx half 6 and back home about 8:30pm approx.;)
I popped out earlier to pick up some turkish delight for him, we forgot about this yesterday bless.:o :rolleyes: .

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I really hope you are right Di. It just seems strange not to have heard anything yet other than the "Yes" we have received your complaint. I did ring Thursday and was told someone would be in touch but nothing Thursday or Friday. I was also told the other week that there was "activity" on the complaint. Fingers crossed. We really need this.

Hmm to be honest hun, it sounds promising, when they say activity on the complaint I would take it as if they were actually dealing with this right now.

I hope you hear tomorrow about this just to settle your mind, even though I'm sure it will be okay.;)

And yes they can get it wrong and do always give you the chance to let them know in case you think they have overlooked your complaint.

I don't want this one thrown back at me either and that was their own words used on that letter they sent me (unfair reabte/settlement) and about being able to look at this as a brand new complaint.

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Hmm to be honest hun, it sounds promising, when they say activity on the complaint I would take it as if they were actually dealing with this right now.

I hope you hear tomorrow about this just to settle your mind, even though I'm sure it will be okay.;)

And yes they can get it wrong and do always give you the chance to let them know in case you think they have overlooked your complaint.

I don't want this one thrown back at me either and that was their own words used on that letter they sent me about being able to look at this as a brand new complaint.

added more to that post now???????????

marshallka

marshallka wrote: »

added more to that post now???????????

I should not have had to mention about the GISC thing though. That is their job is it not?? I did not want to add any more to my complaint. I wanted them to look into what i had already sent to them.

Going to find the letter and look if they asked if there was anything they had overlooked??

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I really hope you are right Di. It just seems strange not to have heard anything yet other than the "Yes" we have received your complaint. I did ring Thursday and was told someone would be in touch but nothing Thursday or Friday. I was also told the other week that there was "activity" on the complaint. Fingers crossed. We really need this.

Although, I am confused here about the wording that FOS have used in unfair settlement/rebate as I have now only worded it unfair rebate as my one that stated unfair settlement was passed to an adjudicator and thrown back to me. I then thought it was because i used the words of unfair settlement. I am so blummin confused with this one as in my letter from the adjudicator he stated that he could not look into this complaint as Firstplus only became under their jurisdiction in January, 2005 and yet they were members of the GISC in November 2001. I will just have to wait and see. Maybe the first adjudicator got things wrong here. Maybe thats the problem. (wishful thinking ey!!!!)

I have known people to have their's returned and got back in touch with the FOS to explain their situation, they have then changed their minds and have had it looked at again and some do also request for another adjudicator or so to take a look for another opinion, as I have heard of that one too.;)

marshallka

Just found the letter now. It states that my complaint for settlement of the loan with Firstplus is outside our jurisdiction as they did not come under our jurisdiction until 14th January, 2005 and therefore both complaint ie 2001 and 2003 we are not able to help with.

It did say that if i had further evidence then please get back by 14th July. I did not argue as the only thing that would have changed it is the GISC thing and they should have known that they were under GISC from November 2001.

I feel so annoyed now. I have only just read the letter again and its states my complaint for unfair settlement at 2003.

Its not my situation that has changed, its that they have not looked into their jurisdiction properly i think.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I should not have had to mention about the GISC thing though. That is their job is it not?? I did not want to add any more to my complaint. I wanted them to look into what i had already sent to them.

Going to find the letter and look if they asked if there was anything they had overlooked??

The same thing happened to this guy I know, he had 2 complaints with the same company (Welcome Finance) comes to mind.

One was under Gisc and the other was not, the FOS returned both the complaints, and this guy had got in touch to inform them that he hopes they realise that at least one of those complaints they were under jurisdiction (GISC), the FOS taken a look and then realised this.

So he is having that one looked again at least anyway, but for us to do their jobs of telling them this is wrong and it is down to the FOS to check this out.
I'm sure they have a list of who and who wasn't covered ??