Share your stories on PPI Reclaiming claims handlers
Comments
-
-
Your replies are beginning to take on the familiar taint of propaganda.
You said he who pays the piper calls the tune. I infer from this you mean because the banks pay the FOS, then it's their tune that's playing. My answer was that they quite obviously aren't playing the same tune otherwise they wouldn't uphold peoples complaints, no matter if they were correct or incorrect in their position of misselling.Shampoo? No thanks, I'll have real poo...0 -
You said he who pays the piper calls the tune. I infer from this you mean because the banks pay the FOS, then it's their tune that's playing. My answer was that they quite obviously aren't playing the same tune otherwise they wouldn't uphold peoples complaints, no matter if they were correct or incorrect in their position of misselling.
The FOS wouldn't uphold the claims of misselling if the high court hadn't ruled against the British bankers association. The FSA only brought the case to court because nearly a million people brought compliants about PPI.
To suggest the FOS would uphold PPI without the court ruling or the complaints that initiated it, is risible at best.0 -
-
The FOS wouldn't uphold the claims of misselling if the high court hadn't ruled against the British bankers association.
That is true - if the BBA had won FOS would not have had jurisdiction over the complaints the judicial review related to.The FSA only brought the case to court because nearly a million people brought compliants about PPI.
The FSA did not bring the case to court, the banks did.To suggest the FOS would uphold PPI without the court ruling or the complaints that initiated it, is risible at best.
This argument supposes the FSA took the banks to court rather than the other way round - as actually happened.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »That is true - if the BBA had won FOS would not have had jurisdiction over the complaints the judicial review related to.
The FSA did not bring the case to court, the banks did.
This argument supposes the FSA took the banks to court rather than the other way round - as actually happened.
The banks did start a judicial review, but this doesn't negate the premise of what I was saying; and that is without the public outcry the FSA would not have changed/enforced regulations concerning PPI selling. Which in turn led to the banks asking for a judicial review.
I like how you try to turn a mis-step into a marathon.0 -
The banks did start a judicial review, but this doesn't negate the premise of what I was saying; and that is without the public outcry the FSA would not have changed/enforced regulations concerning PPI selling. Which in turn led to the banks asking for a judicial review.
Again untrue.
FOS already had jurisdiction over the banks because they submitted to it when it took over from the Banking Ombudsman in 2001.
It was already upholding complaints. The banks therefore argued that standards should not be applied retrospectively.
I am merely pointing out that your assertions are incorrect - and why.I like how you try to turn a mis-step into a marathon.
On that point:Whoever pays the piper calls the tune.
Only if they pay voluntarily. I pay my taxes - that includes the cost of the Police.
Whilst I have suppose I do have some influence in that I can vote for a new Commissioner this week, I doubt that I will get very far telling the local bobby he can't arrest me because I pay his salary through my Council tax.
The levies paid by firms to the FSA and FOS (and the FSCS for that matter) are compulsory. So there is no scope for financial services firms to attempt corruption of the type you infer.
Anybody who did would quickly find it led to career limiting consequences.0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »Again untrue.
FOS already had jurisdiction over the banks because they submitted to it when it took over from the Banking Ombudsman in 2001.
It was already upholding complaints. The banks therefore argued that standards should not be applied retrospectively.
I am merely pointing out that your assertions are incorrect - and why.
On that point:
Only if they pay voluntarily. I pay my taxes - that includes the cost of the Police.
Whilst I have suppose I do have some influence in that I can vote for a new Commissioner this week, I doubt that I will get very far telling the local bobby he can't arrest me because I pay his salary through my Council tax.
The levies paid by firms to the FSA and FOS (and the FSCS for that matter) are compulsory. So there is no scope for financial services firms to attempt corruption of the type you infer.
Anybody who did would quickly find it led to career limiting consequences.
What you're essentially saying is that the banking ombudsman wasn't doing it's job (otherwise there would be no need for retrospective action) but when the FSA and the financial ombudsman service arrived on the scene they did. So in other words the FOS which started out in 2001 and FSA decided to enforce the law. I say this because the misselling of PPI is in breach of several legislative pieces of law; most notably the unfair contract terms act 1977 and the misrepresentation act 1967.
You seem a little naive where influence of the well connected are concerned. Please read the following link and tell me do you think a member of the public in similar circumstances would have been treated in the same manner?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254134/Tanned-relaxed-earning-big-bucks--judge-far-stressed-face-trial.html0 -
In March 2012, the Halifax paid me back £10,843.00 for PPI on a Credit Card.(This was the total figure)
I then challenged HFC bank regarding PPI on a loan and they investigated and just under £3k was paid into my account this week.
Also I challenged Royal Bank of Scotland about PPI and they paid me by cheque which has cleared just over £3K this week.
I have questioned whether PPI was put on a RBS Credit Card marketed to me at a meeting when the consolidation loan was paid out>
The last 6 years have been hard but I have come through it through a debt management company (CCCS) , but would like to thank also your website for making me realise that I was not alone and this gives confidence to get the money back that I should not have paid out in the first place.0 -
What you're essentially saying is that the banking ombudsman wasn't doing it's job (otherwise there would be no need for retrospective action) but when the FSA and the financial ombudsman service arrived on the scene they did.
I am saying nothing of the sort.
If what you say is true then those who chose to use the courts instead of FOS would have won - but in fact the opposite is true.
No it didn't. FOS instead decided that it would instead do what it thought was "fair and reasonable in the circumstances" - which the last Chief Ombudsman boasted was "unashamedly making new Law" - and applying it retrospectively.So in other words the FOS which started out in 2001 and FSA decided to enforce the law.
And as I say, if that were true, the courts would have found in favour of complainants but did not.I say this because the misselling of PPI is in breach of several legislative pieces of law; most notably the unfair contract terms act 1977 and the misrepresentation act 1967.You seem a little naive where influence of the well connected are concerned. Please read the following link and tell me do you think a member of the public in similar circumstances would have been treated in the same manner?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254134/Tanned-relaxed-earning-big-bucks--judge-far-stressed-face-trial.html
I think I am sufficiently streetwise to spot a conspiracy theorist when I see one.
And you still have not explained why you think the principle that he who asserts must prove is wrong.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards