Refused by ombudsman
s30avo
Posts: 3 Newbie
Hi I have had ppi with a credit card opened in 2002. I have been through the process or trying to reclaim using the financial ombudsman and they rejected the claim. However I have been informed that the bank does have to pay back commission and profit that was more that 50% the premium!
I still believe the bank missold the ppi. The final decision has been reached from the ombudsman and they have stated if I don’t agree with their decision I can go to court!
I tried to argue that I didn’t wish for ppi and that it was ticked by someone at the bank. If ppi would have been explained to me I would have rejected it!
The ombudsman has written in her final findings “I don’t have anything to suggest that someone ticked to add ppi after Mr.. had already signed the application”
However, on the next page I find she has contradicted herself by saying “BOS got a high level of commission and profit share so it should have told Mr.. about this”
Bearing in mind that in 2002 the banks didn’t think they were going to get caught doing this so would a tick on a box really have been so out of the question?
Now the ombudsman want me to sign a final decision form for the bank of Scotland.
I am unaware how much the bank are willing to offer until I sign it and since it’s legally binding I won’t have any options!
I attempted to contact the bank so they could provide me with a figure but they’re unwilling to do this until the acceptance form is received.
The ombudsman stayed I can take this matter to court but they’re finished with it! I either sign the paper work and accept or don’t accept and go to court!
Any help would be great
I still believe the bank missold the ppi. The final decision has been reached from the ombudsman and they have stated if I don’t agree with their decision I can go to court!
I tried to argue that I didn’t wish for ppi and that it was ticked by someone at the bank. If ppi would have been explained to me I would have rejected it!
The ombudsman has written in her final findings “I don’t have anything to suggest that someone ticked to add ppi after Mr.. had already signed the application”
However, on the next page I find she has contradicted herself by saying “BOS got a high level of commission and profit share so it should have told Mr.. about this”
Bearing in mind that in 2002 the banks didn’t think they were going to get caught doing this so would a tick on a box really have been so out of the question?
Now the ombudsman want me to sign a final decision form for the bank of Scotland.
I am unaware how much the bank are willing to offer until I sign it and since it’s legally binding I won’t have any options!
I attempted to contact the bank so they could provide me with a figure but they’re unwilling to do this until the acceptance form is received.
The ombudsman stayed I can take this matter to court but they’re finished with it! I either sign the paper work and accept or don’t accept and go to court!
Any help would be great
0
Comments
-
The two points don't contradict each other. One is about ticking the box, the other about commission.
Your Plevin refund is defined, so you can go ahead and signed it. It's not negotiable.
Take the refund and forget about funding your own court case.0 -
Can you tell us how exactly these two comments contradict one another? They are entirely unrelated.The ombudsman has written in her final findings “I don’t have anything to suggest that someone ticked to add ppi after Mr.. had already signed the application”
However, on the next page I find she has contradicted herself by saying “BOS got a high level of commission and profit share so it should have told Mr.. about this”
They haven't been "caught" though. You made an unfounded accusation of wrong-doing for which you could provide no evidence. If you were so determined not to have the insurance, why didn't you complain (and cancel) as soon as you saw it being charged on each monthly statement?in 2002 the banks didn’t think they were going to get caught doing this so would a tick on a box really have been so out of the question?
Your accusation therefore has no evidence and little credibility sixteen years on.
The Bank are required to offer you a full refund of the undisclosed commission. It's not somehow negotiable.I am unaware how much the bank are willing to offer until I sign it and since it’s legally binding I won’t have any options!
That about sums up the situation. You have exhausted the complaint process and failed.The ombudsman stayed I can take this matter to court but they’re finished with it! I either sign the paper work and accept or don’t accept and go to court!
Realise if you do decide to go to court, you'll need to present very compelling evidence for your accusation. This is not a recommended course of action.0 -
I still believe the bank missold the ppi. The final decision has been reached from the ombudsman and they have stated if I don’t agree with their decision I can go to court!
The card provider rejected you
an adjudicator rejected you
an ombudsman rejected you.
Yet you still think otherwise.I tried to argue that I didn’t wish for ppi and that it was ticked by someone at the bank. If ppi would have been explained to me I would have rejected it!
It is allowed to be ticked by someone else. If you didnt want it, then most people would have complained within the early months. Your reason looses credibility over time. If you complained say by month 3, they would believe you even if there was no evidence. If you are complaining a decade later, you have no credibility. In your case it looks like you are complaining 16 years later. That is after 192 monthly statements. No credibility at all.
The explanation is an unprovable allegation and without evidence pointing towards it, then it is a likely rejection.However, on the next page I find she has contradicted herself by saying “BOS got a high level of commission and profit share so it should have told Mr.. about this”
This is known as a plevin refund and is a bit of luck The regulator never required commissions disclosure. However, the consumer credit act changed in 2006 (effective 2008) and this resulted in a ruling that meant any commission or profit share over 50% has to see the excess over 50% refunded.
It is not a contradiction. Plevin only applies to rejected complaints.bearing in mind that in 2002 the banks didn’t think they were going to get caught doing this so would a tick on a box really have been so out of the question?
Bearing in mind it doesnt matter if someone else ticks it....Any help would be great
Accept the plevin outcome. Your complaint is rejected and there is little point going to court as you have no evidence to show any wrongdoing.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards