PPI Reclaiming discussion Part II

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

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).

Still don't understand about what i asked before. Its all double dutch to me

If co-op were part of this Banking Ombudsman Scheme in 1997 then does that mean that my PPI on loans then can be looked into by the Ombudsman now and becomes under jurisdiction for this reason???

pinknico

marshallka wrote: »

Still don't understand about what i asked before. Its all double dutch to me

If co-op were part of this Banking Ombudsman Scheme in 1997 then does that mean that my PPI on loans then can be looked into by the Ombudsman now and becomes under jurisdiction for this reason???

What we need is one big list of who the fos can look at. what dates apply and what aspects they can look at eg: insurance, penalty charges, loan settlements! Any volunteers ?!!:D

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Hello Di, did you see my post yeterday regarding Picture and Target?

have you seen this on their website now. Someone was asking on a thread in the loans section what would happen to their loan if picture went into liquidation and no-one bought the company so looked on their site and this is there. Don't know if you have already seen this but posted anyway





Your loan has been transferred from Picture Financial Services Plc to Picture Home Loans (No.1) Limited or Picture Home Loans (No.2) Limited. The terms and conditions of your loan, including your account number, remain the same. You should continue to quote your account number in any correspondence.

marshallka

lonely2 wrote: »

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

I would certainly go for the misselling as they told you that it would increase your chances of getting the loan and never asked you to shop around or told you it was not compulsory. It was a far more expensive policy than you could get elsewhere and you got paid anyway.

Good luck

di3004

Hello and good morning folks.;)

Its a damp day today, but never mind I have plenty to get on with here.:D

Hope all are well.;)

di3004

Anyone anything exciting in the post today ?:rolleyes:

Have not seen mine yet, yet the postie didn't turn up here until gone 1pm yesterday, getting all muddled with the post again from what I could make out..... .

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Anyone anything exciting in the post today ?:rolleyes:

Have not seen mine yet, yet the postie didn't turn up here until gone 1pm yesterday, getting all muddled with the post again from what I could make out..... .

Hiya Di, still not well today. Really tired and achy again and cannot sleep either. I have had my post and nothing exciting here. I don't expect to hear anything yet though. I hope my sleeplessness does not last as long as these claims. :eek:

Going to get the other lawn done in a while i think if i can move my !!!. I think everyone is doing other things for now. Its so quiet.

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Hiya Di, still not well today. Really tired and achy again and cannot sleep either. I have had my post and nothing exciting here. I don't expect to hear anything yet though. I hope my sleeplessness does not last as long as these claims. :eek:

Going to get the other lawn done in a while i think if i can move my !!!. I think everyone is doing other things for now. Its so quiet.

Hiya hun
Sorry to hear your still not feeling right, try to rest when you can.;)
I wish you a speedy recovery, although you have been feeling poorly for a little while now.
Just get better quick.;)

I did add a post here last night, about rebates, need to know about this before I add an amount on the claim form, liquidators for one...... , just need to make sure I get the right advice so I know how much to reclaim.
Then I can get on with it. My mate needs to know too.:rolleyes:

Think Tiggrae may have missed it last night but never mind.

Be careful that mowing the grass do not make you feel worse hun. xxxx

marshallka

di3004 wrote: »

Hiya hun
Sorry to hear your still not feeling right, try to rest when you can.;)
I wish you a speedy recovery, although you have been feeling poorly for a little while now.
Just get better quick.;)

I did add a post here last night, about rebates, need to know about this before I add an amount on the claim form, liquidators for one...... , just need to make sure I get the right advice so I know how much to reclaim.
Then I can get on with it. My mate needs to know too.:rolleyes:

Think Tiggrae may have missed it last night but never mind.

Be careful that mowing the grass do not make you feel worse hun. xxxx

Yeah i read about the rebates one. I don't know the figures here but understand what you mean though. Perhaps Tigg's will be on later. Also why have you got to write the amounts out for the liquidators?? Who is this one for?? Is it twopart one??

di3004

marshallka wrote: »

Yeah i read about the rebates one. I don't know the figures here but understand what you mean though. Perhaps Tigg's will be on later. Also why have you got to write the amounts out for the liquidators?? Who is this one for?? Is it twopart one??

Even though I would have to attach the agreement to the liquidators forms about TWOPART, they have requested on the form for an amount .
Confusing it is really.

With a bit of luck Tiggrae will be able to confirm this later, cheers hun.:D