Thread: When are FOS unable to help?

Originally Posted by nicksthename

Hello All,

Myself and a friend are interested in claiming back our PPI premiums. Think I've seen posted that the best way to claim back, if the bank denies claim, is to refer case to the fos.

However I've read that in some cases, for older loans, the FOS cannot do anything as they have only recently taken over regulation in this area over the past few years.

Can anyone tell me when they took over regulation? Don't want to waste time sending claim to FOS if they can't even do anything in the first place.

Thanks a lot!


Nick

Hello nicksthename,

The financial services Authority who overlook practices , issues guidance and investigates bad practices within financial institutes took over regulation of insurance providers in 2004. Therefore any claim before this will not be investigate by the financial services authority FSA or the Financial Ombudsman

Bit of an easy cop out if you ask me, this is when all of the complaints started to come in and they decided to investigate these practices.
I would not allow this to stop you recliaming back ppi if you have a good case for mis-selling. The court is a really good successful process to do.

Keep us posted and if you need help just ask

Hi Nick,
As with all these type of claims your first approach has to be with the company or broker that actually sold you the PPI policy.

Before you can even think of heading to the fos or Court you have to have complained to the company. Only when your complaint with them reaches a deadlock or they provide you with a final get lost letter can you advance your claim to the FOS or Court.

You may also find that before the FOS took over Jurisdiction of the sale of PPI certain other organisations like the FISA were supposed to police these companies. Though from experience the FISA was found to be a complete and utter waste of time.

What Company are you claiming from ?

Good Luck

Ian

The financial services Authority who overlook practices , issues guidance and investigates bad practices within financial institutes took over regulation of insurance providers in 2004. Therefore any claim before this will not be investigate by the financial services authority FSA or the Financial Ombudsman

Hi HHNF
With regards to the above...

Could we still go to the FO/FSA if we took out our agreement end of August 2004?
Thanks

Flower

Hi Flower,
It would do no harm to complain to the fos, They may investigate or if the company involved was not under their Jurisdiction at the time they will advise you who to contact.

The FSA will investigate all claims, though they will not investigate individual complaints and will never tell you the outcome of your complaint. Which to me is a bit off to say the least, what they will do is add your complaint to any others and it will be looked into by the team that Investigate complaints about that particular company. Though you will never get to know the outcome of your individual complaint it may add to a pile that they have and may take action against the company. So in a way a Complaint to the FSA maynot help you as an Individual but it could help the FSA bring actions against the company.

Some companies had their own sort of regulating body prior to the FSA and the FOS, Organsations like the FISA, which to be honest is a bit of a Joke as i Believe (I May be wrong here though ) they are funded by the companies that they are supposed to Regulate.. So you can read what you like into that one..

I wrote to the FISA relating to 2 different companies and to be honest it was a waste of time.

Hope that helps a bit, if not give me a shout.

Ian

Originally Posted by nicksthename

Flower hijacked my thread a bit

Does anyone know what the legal claims are for court action?
Is there a legal basis on which claims can be made?

Hello nick,

This is a post from a successful claimer of PPI, this was their legal reasoning for the claim. I hope this helps, I may not be applicable to your claim, but it give the general idea

I contend that:

1.Under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I was misled and false information was given during the interview process on the day the agreement was made:

“If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor”.

2.The Insurances sold to myself were not defined nor explained and were not "optional" as laid out in the said agreements, indeed I was informed that the Insurance was part and parcel of having a loan. Your in branch agents misrepresented the fact that the insurance was compulsory and due to my inexperience in financial matters at the time this was taken at face value. I believed I had no choice but to agree to the PPI in order to obtain a loan.

3.The PPI section of the contract was filled in prior to my receiving and signing the contract(s) and was therefore not ‘optional’.

4.As the Insurance was in fact a charge for credit on the Conditional Sale Agreement, it could not also be part of the credit on the additional insurances agreement as under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit even where time is given for their payments.

5.If the Insurance was not a charge for credit in respect of the Conditional Sale Agreement, as it was compulsory, it was a charge for credit on the additional insurances and under section 9 (4) CCA credit charges cannot be treated as credit

6.For the reasons stated in either (4) or (5) above, the agreement for additional insurances failed to state the correct amount of credit and did not comply with paragraph 2, schedule 6, which requires that regulated agreements contain as a prescribed term stating the correct amount of credit.

7.The agreement for additional insurances was therefore improperly executed under section 61 (1)(a) of the CCA.


8.The Insurance was mis-sold, as it was not appropriate to my employment circumstances i.e. I was employed on a temporary contract basis which was not covered by the insurance policy. The Lloyds TSB Loan Protection Policy Document has this to say on exclusions to the Policy:

You will not be covered for any period of unemployment which:
i. Immediately follows a period of casual or temporary work, or
ii. Is normal in your line of work, or
iii. Results from the end of a fixed term contract, except where you have:
a. Worked continuously for the same employer for at least 24 months, or
b. Been on a contract for at least 12 months and had that contract renewed at least once.

In response to this I was employed on temporary contracts, had not been with the same employer for 24 months or more and had not been on a contract for at least 12 months.
I was therefore never able to benefit from the insurance sold as my employment circumstances immediately excluded me from cover.

9.I contend that your agent was fully aware of my circumstances and fraudulently / mistakenly passed incorrect details to the insurer to obtain these same Insurances from the insurer. The believe this grossly contravenes ordinary principles of fair dealing.

10.Under the misrepresentation Act 1967 Section 2(1) damages to the sum of the monies paid are hereby claimed.

I was informed on taking out Graduate loans 2 and 3, which were to refinance the proceeding loans, had to be taken on the same terms and conditions as the first
Xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxx
75 Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier

(1) If the debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within section 12(b) or (c) has, in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement, any claim against the supplier in respect of a misrepresentation or breach of contract, he shall have a like claim against the creditor, who, with the supplier, shall accordingly be jointly and severally liable to the debtor.

11 Restricted-use credit and unrestricted-use credit

(1) A restricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement—
(a) to finance a transaction between the debtor and the creditor, whether forming part of that agreement or not, or
(b) to finance a transaction between the debtor and a person (the “supplier”) other than the creditor, or
(c) to refinance any existing indebtedness of the debtor’s, whether to the creditor or another person,

and “restricted-use credit” shall be construed accordingly.

(2) An unrestricted-use credit agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement not falling within subsection (1), and “unrestricted-use credit” shall be construed accordingly.
(3) An agreement does not fall within subsection (1) if the credit is in fact provided in such a way as to leave the debtor free to use it as he chooses, even though certain uses would contravene that or any other agreement.
(4) An agreement may fall within subsection (1)(b) although the identity of the supplier is unknown at the time the agreement is made.

12 Debtor-creditor-supplier agreements

A debtor-creditor-supplier agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement being—

(a) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(a), or
(b) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) and is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or
(c) an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

13 Debtor-creditor agreements

A debtor-creditor agreement is a regulated consumer credit agreement being—

(a) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(b) but is not made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements, or in contemplation of future arrangements, between himself and the supplier, or
(b) a restricted-use credit agreement which falls within section 11(1)(c), or
(c) an unrestricted-use credit agreement which is not made by the creditor under pre-existing arrangements between himself and a person (the “supplier”) other than the debtor in the knowledge that the credit is to be used to finance a transaction between the debtor and the supplier.

187 Arrangements between creditor and supplier

(1) A consumer credit agreement shall be treated as entered into under pre-existing arrangements between a creditor and a supplier if it is entered into in accordance with, or in furtherance of, arrangements previously made between persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c).
(2) A consumer credit agreement shall be treated as entered into in contemplation of future arrangements between a creditor and a supplier if it is entered into in the expectation that arrangements will subsequently be made between persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a), (b) or (c) for the supply of cash, goods and services (or any of them) to be financed by the consumer credit agreement.
(3) Arrangements shall be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (1) or (2) if—
(a) they are arrangements for the making, in specified circumstances, of payments to the supplier by the creditor, and
(b) the creditor holds himself out as willing to make, in such circumstances, payments of the kind to suppliers generally.
(3A) Arrangements shall also be disregarded for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) if they are arrangements for the electronic transfer of funds from a current account at a bank within the meaning of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879.
(4) The persons referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are—
(a) the creditor and the supplier;
(b) one of them and an associate of the other’s;
(c) an associate of one and an associate of the other’s.
(5) Where the creditor is an associate of the supplier’s, the consumer credit agreement shall be treated, unless the contrary is proved, as entered into under pre-existing arrangements between the creditor and the supplier