Jump to content

Hortz

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    198
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About Hortz

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I don't know what you've been told on MSE, but it's nonsense. You cannot "start the process again" if you have already raised a complaint. If he complained over the telephone then that is just as valid a complaint as a written one and hence they have probably investigated it and issued a final response. What you can do is request a copy of this response and, if you disagree with it, contact FOS and see if they will consider the above as special reasons to look at it outside the 6 month time frame. Incidentally you are wasting your time sending SARS, which are not goin
  2. What is your actual complaint? The answer dictates who you would make it to. If your complaint is that you were told that the insurance was a condition of the offer and it wasn't then any complaint would be made to the broker. However, given the date, the broker is unlikely to have been regulated and is therefore not obliged to consider the complaint. Also, from what you've said it appears that the cover was indeed a condition of the offer and therefore you were not actually misled or misinformed.
  3. I think you need to ask your father in law whether what they are saying is correct. If it is and he has previously complained and is outside the six month timescale for FOS referral then that is it. FOS will only consider anything outside that time scale if there are exceptional circumstances which mean that he COULD NOT reasonably have referred the matter to them within 6 months of the final decision. You don't get to start the complaint again. There is a reason for the six month rule, which is that regardless of the rights or wrongs of the matter, It is not reasonable to allow the matte
  4. I am making no judgement whatsoever as to whether the product was missold or not. I am in no position to make any such judgement as I wasn't there and don't have the paperwork. Simply explaining the approach that may be taken by the FSCS to assessing your complaint (which is also the way the FOS would be likely to view it). There are a lot of similarities between mortgage PPI and income protection and it is quite possible for a layman to get confused by terminology. In the absence of any proof of what was or wasn't said, FSCS would have to rely on the available paperwork. If you bought t
  5. I think you're probably over complicating things. What it comes down to is when the OP received those statements with credit card protection or whatever charged on it, they would have realised then that they were paying for something (and, assuming memory serves the OP correctly) that it was something they hadn't asked for. Whether it is PPI or not is somewhat academic. On realising you were paying for something you hadn't asked for, the logical course of action would be to query/complain there and then rather than waiting several years. The OP is clearly capable of und
  6. Santander are right, they did not sell the product and it is of no relevance who the payments were made to (are you sure the insurance payments were made to them in any case as opposed to just the mortgage payments, or were they with a separate insurer?). Therefore, any complaint would be against the IFA and, if they are no longer trading, the FSCS. The other problem with this one is that if I read your post correctly then you are stating that you were, in effect, underinsured. acknowledging that you had a want/need for cover but that you wanted more cover and for
  7. It's been a while since I posted on this forum, but as a former compliance officer I can confirm that Mighty Mouse is right. The document posted by DX was an FCA consultation paper. This is effectively where the FCA sets out a proposed approach to a certain matter and invites comments. The proposals are not rules, merely suggestions which they are inviting feedback on. This dated back to 2009. The FCA rules on timebarring state the following (as Mighty Mouse has stated, this is in the FCA handbook of rules and guidance under DISP 2.8.2 and therefore DOES have the status of a rule:
  8. They are. If you type Harringtons Advisory into the search field it will come up. As regards what is stated on the FCA website, if a firm is providing, or trying to provide, investment services to UK residents then the FCA will be interested since the firm is supposed to be authorised by it to do so. However, as they are doing it by telephone from an office based in Spain there is not a right lot the FCA can do about it. However, the point remains that this is a different company. The FCA has no remit whatsoever over Harringtons Advisory the CMC.
  9. A few comments on this thread. Firstly, Harrington's Advisory based in Bury is a claims management company authorised by the Ministry of Justice. Not that it makes them any good or makes it worth using them, but they are at least permitted to represent complainants in PPI complaints (see the MOJ regisyter at https://www.claimsregulation.gov.uk/details.aspx/29496/Harringtons_Advisory_Limited/?search=simple&business=harringtons+advisory&authID=&sector=-1&county=-1&status=-1). They are also a UK incorporated entity and their incorporation is confirmed on t
  10. You do realise that as the plaintiff, the onus is on you to prove some kind of lawful wrongdoing? What is the legal basis of your case? As I'm struggling to find it.
  11. It is a requirement of FCA rules that when redressing your complaint, they consider any consequential loss arising as a result of the missale of PPI. With credit cards, it is easy to establish as the account balance can be reconstructed to what it would have been with and without the PPI and any charges resulting from the PPI can be refunded. Current accounts are more difficult as they are not directly linked to the product. I am not aware of anyone having much success with this approach. You would basically need to prove that the charges were a direct result o
  12. It stands for card protection plan. It is a product designed to protect you in the event of theft/fraudulent use of your card. The key is that in most cases they were pretty unnecessary since you are already protected from this under (I think) section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. PPI is a different product which protects your credit repayments by making them for you if you are unable to work due to accident, sickness or involuntary unemployment. They are separate products and if one started around the time the other finished, this is almost certainly entirely coincidental. There
  13. This is all totally dependent on your card balance and the amount you paid in premiums between those dates.
  14. This isn't a valid complaint reason. Insurance is there to protect you from UNEXPECTED mishaps. None of us have a crystal ball. There is nobody who is immune from a sudden illness and there are any number of blue chip companies that have either suddenly gone bust or decided to restructure and let staff go. If you had a serious pre-existing illness which was excluded and would have seriously restricted you from claiming then that might have been grounds for complaint. Likewise if you had reason to think you were going to be made redundant that would be grounds for complaint as the policy wouldn
×
×
  • Create New...