This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Just seen this on the FSA website - 'Section 150 rights Under Section 150 of FSMA, private persons who have suffered loss as a result of a firm’s contravention of an FSA rule have the right to take action in the courts for damages. These rights do not attach to breaches of the Principles but are available with respect to breaches of almost all FSA conduct of business rules. So, in line with this approach, we propose that such rights should apply for BCOBS rules.' So surely Principle 6 (a firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly) would not be actionable at court given the statement above?

So what is he getting when he says '...the combined effect of PRIN 3.4.4 R and s.150 FSMA 2000 is to deprive consumers of a right of action under this provision'? PRIN 3.4.4 R states - A contravention of the rules in PRIN does not give rise to a right of action by a private person under section 150 of the Act (and each of those rules is specified under section 150(2) of the Act as a provision giving rise to no such right of action).

Can someone clarify whether it is in fact definately possible to sue a bank under BCOB. Only a friend put this question to a barrister the other day and got this response back: 'As to a proposed claim in the County Courts: this is probably unattractive and unviable for a number of reasons, but I would just point out .... that the Principles of Business are not actionable by consumers. You refer to Principle 6, but the combined effect of PRIN 3.4.4 R and s.150 FSMA 2000 is to deprive consumers of a right of action under this provision.' Am now thoroughly confused!

It's to sue my bank actually. It may well involve FOS too and bringing a Judicial Review...

I haven't asked them directly as yet no, as I'd wanted to check what the policy actually states first. Unfortunately I've lost this and so have to await a copy before I can check the policy wording. If anyone meantime does have any experience, with Axa or any other insurer, I'd be interested to hear.

General question - am I bound to have to use my insurance company's panel of solicitors or can I choose my own from the outset?

You may be surprised to learn that we are only talking of Natwest here! It's regarding a complaint I have with the FOS over a default that was wrongly issued on my credit card. I had claimed they had breached a part of the Lending Code but in her reasons for rejection, she fails to assess whether they breached it at all, dismissing my arguments by saying '"In any case, the FOS is not the regulator of the CCA - the OFT is." 1) she appears to be suggesting that FOS cannot deal with a complaint of any breach made of, or under, the CCA - despite the fact that I was anyway alleging a breach of the Lending Code and 2) We all know that the OFT do not investigate individual consumer complaints so correct me if I'm wrong, even if I was bringing any type of complaint concerning a breach of the CCA, FOS do have both the remit and jurisdiction to hear it - yes?