Jump to content

garyca

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

garyca last won the day on December 18 2009

garyca had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About garyca

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi tagel Well finally got through to the adjudicator who was dealing with my complaint, and everything is OK. Apparently the letter was sent by mistake and was out of sync. He did explain (won't bore you with details). But yes my case is still progressing. He did say that Pinnacle had submitted all the reasons why they shouldn't be responsible and that the head adjudicator was looking into it. I also got the impression that this could take a very long time. Anyway feel better now, then what i did earlier in the week. Regards
  2. Will do tagel. The ajudicator that was on my case is not around at the moment. Reading my letter again i'm even more puzzled. A paragraph i didn't take in at the time. However, i am presently investigating the possibility of raising your concerns with the underwriter of your policy, ie the insurance company who actually provided the cover under the policy. It would be helpful if you could provide us with any information you have on the underwriter of your policy. Seem to be going backwards here. The FOS have had all my documents and know that it was Pinnacle insurance who were the underwriters, which was my complaint in the first place, over a tear ago. When ive spoken to him, i'll hopefully know more and what is happening
  3. I know i can't understand it myself. I know Pinnacle were members of the FSA from 2001, but were not members of the GISC. I will give them a ring this week to clarify. I found this below in regards to the FOS and PPI. transitional arrangements for insurance intermediaries In issue 42 of ombudsman news, we noted that our jurisdiction has recently expanded to include insurance intermediaries. This article outlines the insurance intermediary activities that are now covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. It also explains the arrangements for dealing with relevant transitional complaints – those that concern events that occurred before insurance intermediaries joined our jurisdiction. firms within our jurisdiction From 14 January 2005, the following activities became regulated by the Financial Services Authority (and therefore fell within our jurisdiction): dealing in insurance contracts as agent arranging deals in insurance contracts advising on insurance contracts assisting in the administration and performance of insurance contracts. This means that many firms which carried out such activities and were previously outside our jurisdiction – such as insurance brokers – are now covered by the ombudsman scheme. We also have jurisdiction over firms that have been granted interim permission by the Financial Services Authority to carry out general insurance mediation activities. There are a few specific exceptions to this extension of our jurisdiction: travel agencies – when the insurance is sold as part of a package holiday retailers – when selling extended warranties on some goods, such as refrigerators and televisions loss adjusters – but not loss assessors who act for customers in relation to insurance claims; and the handling of insurance claims on behalf of insurers under a delegated authority. retrospective jurisdiction As well as having jurisdiction over complaints about events occurring on or after 14 January 2005, the Financial Ombudsman Service also has a limited ‘retrospective’ jurisdiction. This covers some complaints about events that occurred before 14 January 2005. The retrospective jurisdiction comes about because of provisions set out in a statutory instrument informally known as The Mortgage & General Insurance Transitional Order. The Order allows us to look at complaints about intermediary activities that occurred before 14 January 2005 if: the firm was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council at the time of the event complained about the complaint would previously have been covered by the General Insurance Standards Council Dispute Resolution Facility the complainant is an individual who is acting otherwise than solely for the purposes of his business; and the firm became regulated by the Financial Services Authority on or after 14 January 2005. Such complaints are known as relevant transitional complaints. While we will determine them in line with our ‘fair and reasonable’ jurisdiction, we must also take into account what the General Insurance Standards Council might have decided. We will not have jurisdiction over any complaints that the Council was already handling before 14 January 2005. Our usual time limits will apply. In a future issue of ombudsman news we will include case studies illustrating some of the jurisdiction issues surrounding transitional arrangements for intermediaries. In the meantime the following flow chart should help to clarify which retrospective complaints we are able to look at.
  4. Hi tagel I'll be very interested to see what the outcome of your case is. I also had a PPI case against Pinnacle Insurance for a loan taken out in July 2004. Pinnacle were the Insurance underwriters. Anyway my case has been with the FOS for wellover a year,and on Monday i got a letter from the ajudicator with the FOS. Which says I am sorry to have to tell you we were unable to investigate your complaint about Pinnacle Insurance Plc because the event you have complained about (the sale of Payment Protection Insurance) took place on a date before the sale of insurance policies by this firm became covered by our jurisdiction and the transitional arrangements in place that can extend our jurisdiction in certain circumstances do not help in this instance. Hope you have better luck. When was your loan taken out? If it was before 2005 like mine, i can't understand why its taking over 2 years to sort? Regards
  5. Yep Originally went after GE, but then got all the non regulated etc. I was going to give up, but it was the FOS that said i might have a case against Pinnacle as you stated above. Fingers crossed but i'm not getting my hopes up. Ive not actually read any Insurance guidlines and what they have to abide by, might see if i can find something. Regards
  6. Most of the ppi documents came from GE (First National at the time), but i believe one came from Pinnacle as well, which was a ppi policy booklet which has Pinnacle and First National names all over it. Regards
  7. OK What happened to your original ppi documents, or did you not recieve any info regarding ppi. Your case is similar to mine, and have recieved a letter saying that the case will be going to an ajudicator, which could take 4 weeks due to high volumes of cases. Regards
  8. Hi Beachcomber Did your case go to an adjudicator at the FOS, or did it not get that far. Regards
  9. Hi dogowner Fill out all the form. A - Yes B - straightforward - your local court if its not there already. C - small claims track - YES D - 0 E - no F - straightforward G - Other information - ''Following the recent judgment by the Supreme Court (25th November 2009) Case [2009] UKSC 6 (On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 116 ) it is extremely likely that further litigation will follow, either between the OFT and the defendant or otherwise to generally decide the issues. I therefore respectfully submit that it would be appropriate for the Court to apply a general stay in this claim pending resolution of the issues raised.'' H - yes, unless you are exempt but you tick yes anyway and attach an EX160 if you are I - sign it. _______________________________________________________________ You might need to to amend your POC later, depending on what the outcome of the AQ is. Im pretty sure these will be on the forum by then. This was my original POC, the bits in red are what i have been told to take off if i need to amend. I have also been told to strenghten other arguments adding (such as cca 140 unfair relationships and misrepresentation and competition etc). I believe the OFT will make an announcement on Tuesday regarding if they will carry on. Particulars of Claim The Claimanthasan account *****("the Account") with the Defendant which was opened on or around 2006 The account was conducted on the basis of the defendant’s own standard terms and conditions. At all material times the Claimant was a consumer and the Defendant was a supplier within the meaning of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 During the period in which the Accounthas been operating the Defendant debited numerous charges to the Account in respect of alleged breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant. Alternatively the charges were levied in respect of various purported services provided by the Defendant and relating to exceeded overdrafts, returned cheques, failed direct debits and so forth. The charges were levied on the basis of certain purported contractual terms which apparently permitted the charges to be made. A list of the charges applied is attached to these particulars of g claim. The Claimant contends that: Insofar as they might be penalties the charges debited to the account are punitive in nature; are not a genuine pre-estimate of cost incurred by the Defendant; exceed any alleged actual loss to the Defendant in respect of any breaches of contract on the part of the Claimant; and are extravagant and unconscionable in amount in comparison with the greatest loss that could conceivably be proved to have followed from the breach, but instead act in terrorem to ensure contractual compliance and to deter a breach on the part of the Claimant. Insofar as they purport to be services provided by the Defendant, the High Court and subsequently the Court of Appeal have held the services in respect of which the defendant has levied charges are subject to tests of unfairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999. The purported terms imposing the charges levied by the Defendant are invalid under UTCCR becausea.They are contrary to the requirement of good faith. b.They cause a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer in that:- Bank accounts have become a basic essential service The Defendant is a wholly dominant partner in a non-negotiable standard-form contract. There are a limited number of providers of banking services all whom exercise similar dominance over their customers in non-negotiable standard form contracts. These banks exercise a collective dominance in the market. The charges of all banks are highly similar in nature and in cost and so the consumer in general and the claimant in particular has no real choice between banking service providers and is forced to acquiesce to the charges. The charges exceed actual costs by several thousand percent They are applied unilaterally in a standard form contract without the possibility of negotiation The Defendant raises the charges or restructures its charging scheme at will without discussion with its customers The Charges are of subsidiary importance to the customer in the context of the Banking Contract as a whole and would not influence the making of the Banking Contract. The customer had no means of assessing the fairness of the Charges at the time of entering the contract The charges reflect a markup of several thousands of percent on the costs of dealing with the claimant's "delinquency" episodes. This is an extraordinary markup for any UK business. The normal markup on the High Street is less than 100%. Many of the Defendants charges are levied on previous charges incurred in preceding months. Therefore the Defendants are themselves causing the impecuniousity which then triggers more charges. Therefore the Defendants have caused much of the claimant's impecuniousity and it is the Defendants who are causing the charges to be levied with a view to their own profit. The Defendant operates its high level of charges in order to cross-subsidise other banking services which it provides to other customers at less than cost price - "free-banking". The charges could be imposed repeatedly and interest at a higher rate could be charged on those accumulated charges The Defendant's charges structure depends upon the impecuniousity and vulnerability of its poorer customers to provide free-banking services for those in a better position. The overall charging regime operated by the Defendant is disproportionately applied to a minority of its customers, often those who are least able to afford it.· As established by the High Court and subsequently by the Court of Appeal (OFT v Abbey& 7 Ors) the customer would receive no service or benefit in return for the imposition of charges. 11.In the premises the terms imposing the charges are unfair within the meaning of Regulation 5 (1) and thus not binding on the Claimant under Regulation 8.Accordingly the Claimant claims: a) the restitution of the amounts debited in respect of charges in the sum of £********* and interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from 15/01/2007 to 13/11/2009 of ****** I believe that the contents of these particulars of claim are true Signed: Date: 13/11/2009 Regards
  10. Hi Dogowner I myself have just sent back an Allocation Questionnaire, as Nationwide filed a defence soon after the Supreme Court Judgement. Nationwide didn't mention anything about the judgement in its defence. Have LSTB filed a defence?? and does in mention the Supreme Court judgement??. I believe you can still apply for a stay on your AQ which will give you a bit of breathing space to see what the OFT intends to do regarding the test case basically. And you never know the bank might pay up if they know you intend carrying on. Its totally up to you, and you might want to take further advice. On my AQ i wrote (after taking advice) in the other information box. ''Following the recent judgment by the Supreme Court (25th November 2009) Case [2009] UKSC 6 (On appeal from: [2009] EWCA Civ 116 ) it is extremely likely that further litigation will follow, either between the OFT and the defendant or otherwise to generally decide the issues. I therefore respectfully submit that it would be appropriate for the Court to apply a general stay in this claim pending resolution of the issues raised.''
  11. Hi Does anybody know if there is a form or document for objecting to an Application Notice for an extension of Time by the defendants. Basically ive had an ongoing case against Barclays regarding missold PPI. This has been ongoing for over a year, and has even been through the FOS. With help from the FOS, Barclays agreed to get in touch within 4 weeks to make me an offer. After 8 weeks and 3 telephone calls to Barclays an offer never came. Finally i got fed up and decided to go through the courts, Barclays had to file a defence by the 17th today. Barclays have now applied for an extension for filling a defence, to the 14th Jan, they say due to complex legal issues???. Will this ever end. Regards
  12. Barclays Update Had a letter from Barclays solicitors (Simmons & Simmons) this morning. As you are aware, the defence in this matter is due on the 17th December. The claim form in this matter raises complex legal issues. Further our client requires more time to retrieve all of its documents relating to this matter. On those bases, it is unlikely that our client will be able to file its defence by the due date. In order to save both parties the additional time and costs involved in applying to the court for an extension of time, please confirm that you will agree to grant our client a further 28 days to file a defence. Can't believe the cheek of the letter, its only been ongoing for over a year, and the FOS have already ruled in my favour, but there still quibbling. Also why would it cost me money if they apply for the extension through the courts Needless to say i will be trying to block the extension. They even sent my charges sheet back and said it related to an MBNA account and that i must have sent the wrong sheet by error. When i checked it, it clearly says Morgan Stanley and is correct. They don't seem to know what they are doing. In case your puzzled original claim was against Morgan Stanley who was bought out by Goldfish and then Barclays. I will post if i hear anymore news. Regards
  13. Hi Everyone I recieved a Notice that a Defence has been filed from the courts today regarding my bank charges claim against Nationwide. I have recieved an Allocation Questionnaire to fill before the 29th Dec also. Am i right in thinking that we now have to amend our original claim documents regarding these charges. Any help would be appreciated. Regards
  14. Thanks for the reply 42man I was made redundant in January this year, and although the PPI ran out in August this year i didn't make a claim, as i read that if you was to make a claim i wouldn't be able to go for misselling. I went to the FOS about PPI misselling against GE Money, they claimed it was the broker (TLC - The Loan Company) who was responsible for the PPI. TLC also claimed they were responsible but as they were not registered at the time, there was nothing that could be done. The FOS wrote and told me the same thing, but said i might have a claim against the Insurance underwriters (Cardiff Pinnacle). So at the moment i am waiting on an adjudicators decision at the FOS. Who are GMAC ?? As for legal aid i will look into it. It just seems wrong that i could lose my property in about a months time when in anytime from now to a couple of months i could have money returned to me that would pay the arrears off. Also if the FOS rule in my favour it would mean that i have been paying too much money the last 5 years as the PPI was added to the loan in a single payment and interest charged as well. It would also mean that the actually amount outstanding would be less than what they are saying. Like i said i brought this all up at the hearing but to no avail. In fact i may aswell have not turned up at the hearing, as they was talking as if i wasn't there. Hopefully i can find work before the deadline, and come to some sort of arrangement. Regards
  15. Hi Beachcomber60 In the same boat as yourself, FOS told Barclays to get back to me with an offer within 4 weeks, anyway 7 weeks and 2 phone calls to Barclays later i still hadn't had an offer or a reply from them. Eventually got fed up so i issued an N1 at court for PPI Premiums + Compound interest and 8% Simple. They have until the 18th December to file defence. I will let you know what happens. Regards
×
×
  • Create New...