PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

Di, having an early one in 10 mins as knackered again. I really need my bed. What do you think about my post above the Co-op complaint???

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

scratch the previous I've just come across this

COMPULSORY JURISDICTION
Current extent: events before 1 December 2001
2.1 The Financial Ombudsman Service’s compulsory jurisdiction in relation to
complaints about events before 1 December 2001 is established by the Act
and the Transitional Order. It covers:

Firms, and their activities, that were covered by any of the eight former

complaint-handling schemes (listed in paragraph 1.1 of this paper)

immediately before 1 December 2001 whether or not these firms and activies are now regulated by the FSA

these are the 8 schemes

five ombudsman schemes – the Banking, Building Societies, Insurance,
Investment and Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Schemes

three other schemes – the Financial Services Authority’s Complaints

Investigator, the Securities and Futures Authority Complaints Bureau and

the Personal Insurance Arbitration Service.

How the hell do you find out who was covered by these !!!!!

I found out co-op was by googling co-op bank and banking ombudsman scheme and found an article in 1997.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Di, having an early one in 10 mins as knackered again. I really need my bed. What do you think about my post above the Co-op complaint???

I bet your shattered hun.
You have a good sleep and I will go back to read your co-op post now, cheers hunni. Mum just rang when I was about to read it lol, so will do that now.

If I miss ya now then I will catch ya tomorrow, you sleep well hunni.
Di.
xxx

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Egg loan 2000-2003

egg loan 2004-2006

egg credit card 2000-2003
egg credit card 2003-2006

Just found this about someone going to the Banking Ombudsman Scheme about Egg in the year of 2001. They may have been part of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme before that date and they may come under "Compulsory Jurisdiction" that Tiggrae posted a little was back... Always worth a try.:D

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/bank/egg-com/331467/

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Just found this that proves that the Co-op were part of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme

Complaints to the Banking Ombudsman Scheme For the year ending 1997, the Banking Ombudsman Scheme received 130 complaints from customers of The Co-operative Bank. This is a reduction on the previous year, when 150 complaints were registered; and this is particularly impressive when one considers that the bank's personal and corporate account base increased by 20% and 15% respectively, over that period.

That is probably why they asked about my earlier ones as well.:j

What do you think Tiggrae.???

Wow, cool.......:D :j , so they can go back this far then and with the Co-op ? I did not realise these were part of the ombudsman scheme, that's good news then for consumers who have complaints against these.;) :j

Well done, good find:D :T .

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Wow, cool.......:D :j , so they can go back this far then and with the Co-op ? I did not realise these were part of the ombudsman scheme, that's good news then for consumers who have complaints against these.;) :j

Well done, good find:D :T .

I need to check with Tiggrae on this one as it about activities of the bank and was selling insurance classed as an activity cause singlep says that sale of insurance (unless GISC members) only came into force from January, 2005. I don't know for definate but I can only but hope can't I.

May be completely wrong here but have to see tomorrow when Tiggrae is around perhaps.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

I need to check with Tiggrae on this one as it about activities of the bank and was selling insurance classed as an activity cause singlep says that sale of insurance (unless GISC members) only came into force from January, 2005. I don't know for definate but I can only but hope can't I.

May be completely wrong here but have to see tomorrow when Tiggrae is around perhaps.

I hope so hun, but Yep get it double checked and see what other responses you have on this, hopefully a good one.;)

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Just found this that proves that the Co-op were part of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme

Complaints to the Banking Ombudsman Scheme For the year ending 1997, the Banking Ombudsman Scheme received 130 complaints from customers of The Co-operative Bank. This is a reduction on the previous year, when 150 complaints were registered; and this is particularly impressive when one considers that the bank's personal and corporate account base increased by 20% and 15% respectively, over that period.

That is probably why they asked about my earlier ones as well.:j

What do you think Tiggrae.???

I just read the last report from the financial services ombudsman scheme before it changed to the financial ombudsman service and it says 99% of banking organisations were covered by the banking ombudsman, 100% of building societies were covered by the building societies ombudsman and 231 firms were members of the insurance ombudsman bureau and you could email them for a list. It says in practical terms almost all the general insurers were covered - (but remember these are not the insurance intermediaries) - it goes on to say

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]general insurance regulation [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The conduct of general insurance business is regulated by a new organisation, the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC). We have worked closely with GISC during the year to help it develop its rules and, in particular, its new Code for Private Customers. This code will in due course replace the Association of British Insurers’ (ABI) Code as a statement of the obligations of the industry when selling general insurance products. As the membership of GISC grows, the new code will play an important part in our consideration of many disputes. - this was then taken over by the FOS on 15.01.2005[/FONT]

The following is the transitional arrangements for the Financial Services Ombudsman Schemes transitioning to the the financial Ombudsman Services - I've bolded the important bit about the FOS having the discretion to extend time limits

Complaints made after commencement about acts or omissions before commencement
3. - (1) Subject to the provisions of this Order, the compulsory jurisdiction resulting from section 226 applies to a complaint referred to the new scheme after commencement which relates to an act or omission occurring before commencement, if the conditions mentioned in paragraph (2) are satisfied (notwithstanding that the conditions in subsection (2)(b) and (c) of that section are not met).

(2) The conditions are that -

(a) the act or omission is that of a person who was, immediately before commencement, subject to a former scheme;

(b) the act or omission occurred in the carrying on by that person of an activity to which that former scheme applied; and

(c) the complainant is eligible and wishes to have the complaint dealt with under the new scheme.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), where the complainant is not eligible in accordance with rules made under section 226(6) and (7) (power to specify in rules the classes of persons who are eligible complainants), an ombudsman may nonetheless, if he considers it appropriate, treat the complainant as eligible if he would have been entitled to refer an equivalent complaint to the former scheme in question immediately before commencement.

(4) Where the former scheme in question is the insurance scheme, a complainant is not to be treated as eligible for the purposes of paragraph (2)(c) unless -

(a) he is an individual; and (b) the complaint does not concern aspects of a policy relating to a business or trade carried on by him.

(5) A complaint falling within paragraph (1) is referred to in this Order as a "relevant new complaint".

Procedure applying to relevant complaints
4. - (1) In paragraph 13(1) of Schedule 17 (time limits for making complaints) -

(a) the reference to "a complaint" is to be taken to include a relevant complaint; (b) the reference to "the ombudsman scheme" is, in relation to a relevant existing complaint, to be taken to mean the former scheme in question; and (c) the reference to "the ombudsman scheme" is, in relation to a relevant new complaint, to be taken to mean the new scheme as it applies to such complaints by virtue of this Order.

(2) Paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 17 (discretion for ombudsman to extend time limits) is to be taken to require an ombudsman to extend any time limit applying to a relevant complaint by virtue of paragraph (1) where -

(a) the complaint is a relevant existing complaint, or is a relevant new complaint referred to the new scheme not later than twelve months after commencement; and (b) the effect of the extension is that the time limit applying to the complaint is the same as that which would have applied under the former scheme in question as it had effect immediately before commencement;

but subject to that, paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 17 applies in relation to relevant complaints as it applies in relation to complaints of the kind mentioned in section 226(1) (compulsory jurisdiction).

(3) In paragraph 13(3) of Schedule 17 (rules requiring complaint to be first communicated to the respondent), the reference to "a complaint" is to be taken to include a relevant complaint.

(4) In paragraph 13(4) of Schedule 17 (rules requiring the maintenance of complaint procedures), the reference to complaints which may be referred to the scheme is to be taken to include -

(a) relevant existing complaints; and (b) any complaint which may be referred to the scheme as a relevant new complaint.

Scheme rules applying to relevant complaints
<A name=5>5. - (1) In paragraph 14 of Schedule 17 (the scheme operator's rules), references to "complaints" are to be taken to include relevant complaints.

(2) Paragraph (1) is subject to the following -


this is the section on the Insurance Ombudsman Scheme and what is covered

The insurance division of the Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme resolves disputes between consumers and insurance companies about general insurance (for example, motor and household insurance, travel insurance, loan protection and medical expenses policies). The Financial Services Ombudsman Scheme carries out this work on behalf of – and under the rules of – the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau (the IOB).

di3004

I have a question to ask here before I forget......:o

Right then:
A loan arranged through a broker to a lender where the following year you have a loan advance (new loan advance) with that same lender, now here they should then recalculate the loan rebate before going into a new advance loan agreement.
Even though you don't really see this money they knock off in rebate what you have not used, so if you use something like 8 months of that first cover they rebate the rest, plus interest etc.

(If I am incorrect in any way please let me know because this is for a mate but a favour for me too) cheers.;)

Now from here you realise you were mis sold on the first Loan ppi, is it only that of the amount of the remainder of the rebate you can claim back to put you back in the position as if you did not have the ppi in the first place ?

For example a cover for £10K, a rebate of £3K were given when ending the first loan for a new loan advance, but you don't actually see it but it just comes off the amount of the loan itself ???
So if you were to reclaim would it be that of the £7K plus interest, minus charges etc etc ?

I would like to be certain of this myself too for one of my reclaims.;)
Because if it was mis sold there is always those that interest is added on top that would not have been there either. And the loan itself would have been obviously recalculated on its own if ppi were not taken out in the first place.

What are your thoughts folks ?
Tiggrae are you still here hun ?
Cheers so much.

Di
x

lonely2

Quote:
Originally Posted by lonely2
Hi. Wondering if anyone can help.

In 2006 I took out a loan Northern Rock and they advised me at the time that taking the PPI would increase my chances of the loan request being accepted so I took it even though my job pays 6 months full then 6 months half pay and has a "no redundancies" policy.

I am now on a Debt Management Plan and Northern Rock have been one of the easier ones to deal with - accepting my reduced payments and not giving me too much hassle.

The only thing is, before I started my DMP I asked for a settlement figure and then when I started making the reduced payments they frontloaded all the interest AND PPI which increased the outstanding balance by over £5,000.

My questions are:

1) Do you think I was mis-sold the PPI in the first place
2) Can they really add all the PPI to the outstanding balance even though
by defaulting on my loan it would not pay out anyway
3) If eligible, is it worth trying to reclaim or will I just upset them and make
them more difficult to deal with re my DMP - I'm scared in case they
get tough and put a charging order on my house or something

Any help appreciated

Thanks