Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Hortz

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    198

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Hortz

  1. Hortz
    Not with a FOS case, no. What happens is they offer a refund of premiums with interest in line with standard calculation methodology. FOS put this to you. I believe you would need to sign a FOS acceptance, which will be a blind one just accepting the full refund. FOS then communicate this to the lender, who calculate and pay the redress. Admittedly this can lead to frustration when trying to work out how the figure is arrived at, as you have found out.
  2. Hortz
    If the policy was sold on an advised basis and the OP had sufficient sick pay then this is correct. If it was sold on a non advised basis then the company is not responsible for assessing circumstances and appropriateness, this is the customer's responsibility. The OP has not said which this was nor how much sick pay he/she actually got, hence it is difficult to advise with certainty in this case. " As regards the attached judgement, I don't feel it is likely to be of much use in this case. Completely different set of circumstances. The policy in that case was a single premium one, which as you can tell from the judgement, FOS don't like anyway, as opposed to a regular premium one. It was much more expensive than most mortgage PPI and was protecting a debt that is considered much less important than a mortgage, which can result in being made homeless if you don't pay it. The customer in that case was also concluded to have received advice and benefitted from one of the best sick pay schemes in the country. If FOS consider that the customer had sufficient sick pay to make the policy unnecessary then even in the absence of any evidence, they will assume that the customer can't have been accurately informed of what the product was/covered otherwise they wouldn't have purchased it. However, with MPPI, generally you would need at least 12 months full pay for FOS to uphold on this basis.
  3. Hortz
    As regards the endowment, I am assuming your mortgage was interest only? If this is the case then it is correct that they insist on your having a repayment vehicle in place for the capital element. When they say they find no evidence of misspelling, is this because it genuinely WAS a requirement of the offer that you take out PPI? (it isn't misselling if they tell you it is a condition of the offer and it genuinely is, only if they tell you it is a condition when it is not) Or are they saying it wasn't a condition of the offer but they can find no evidence to support your allegation? If the latter, this is the problem with verbal accusations, they are virtually impossible to prove. If you have any further evidence or info they have not taken into account then go back to them. But don't leave it too long as you only have six months to go to FOS. If you are just arguing the toss over their original conclusion, this is unlikely to be successful and you may as well go directly to FOS. You can't. How long did you get full sick pay for? It is generally very hard to make this argument stick with FOS on mortgage PPI because it is a long term debt and can result in your being made homeless if unpaid. It is easier with unsecured loan/credit card PPI as this debt is considered of less importance. 12 months full pay or more might be a winner, any less and probably not. As regards redundancy pay, this is not likely to be a consideration, you are very unlikely to have a contractual entitlement to this (since it would become taxable if you did), any redundancy would be an ex gratia payment at the discretion of the company.
  4. Hortz
    You complain to whoever sold you the PPI. Not the lender.
  5. Hortz
    Most lenders will send you confirmation of whether you have had PPI with them if you contact their specialist team. They won't charge you for it either. A SAR will cost you a tenner per lender, which could start to get pretty expensive, and turn up a load of rubbish which you have no interest in. As regards TSB anyway, as I understand it despite their demerger, Lloyds have retained the liabilities for TSB's PPI sales so any query/complaint would really need to go to them.
  6. Hortz
    Pointless being argumentative and sabre rattling for the sake of it. They won't take any notice anyway. The reason they do this is because there are so many people who submit SARS when all they really want to know is whether they have had PPI. If you really want everything they hold on you then I suggest you just go back and say that, reminding them of the 40 day time limit. You need to think about what you are actually hoping to achieve though. It is really not likely that the SAR is going to throw up anything of use to you and you'll probably end up with a load of envelopes full of cr*p. You would waste less time if you just put in a complaint.
  7. Hortz
    Logical. That's what a claim is, when you suffer an insurer event and use the cover. There is no error. They are calculating the redress in the correct manner as permitted by FCA rules. The FCA specifically allows deductions of any amounts paid in claim. After all, they have to put you back in the same position as if you'd never taken the policy. So whilst this means refunding your premiums, they are allowed to deduct your claim, as if you had not had the policy you wouldn't have had anything to claim on. What "persons or bodies" are you referring to? The offer has been calculated correctly. Nobody is going to be able to change that.
  8. Hortz
    You can ask for whatever you want. However, in the absence of any valid reason, the OP's request is not likely to be considered very seriously.
  9. Hortz
    You've missed the point. Neither you nor anybody else has any right to just "claim the PPI back" as you put it. Despite what you may read in the media, PPI is not some kind of magical insurance which you can get back just because you feel like it. If you go in expecting to get it back just because you have it then you are likely to end up disappointed. There is also no company out there who can get it back for you just because you have it. All any company can do is send in a complaint alleging missale of a policy on your behalf. That basically means that you were misled or misadvised at the time of purchasing the product and would not have purchased it had you been given the correct advice/information. However, you will still need to give the the reasons for your complaint, I.e why you wouldn't have bought it and what misleading information/advice you were given. The moral of the story being that if you have reason for complaint and can give all the above information, you may as well give it directly to the seller of the PPI. Either you spend 15 minutes writing a letter, or you pay a CMC potentially hundreds of pounds to do so. One thing I neglected to mention last night is that this is especially so for somebody in your situation where your loan is in arrears. This is because if they do offer you anything and offset it then you could end up in a position where you don't see any of the money but still end up with a bill from the CMC. Indeed, a lot of CMCs will now not deal with customers who are in arrears since in the above scenario they can rarely find money to pay them.
  10. Hortz
    They are correct regarding the DPA. A SAR entitles you to any information they hold ON YOU. Standard sales scripts are not information they hold on you they are just general documents. As regards going to court, I wouldn't advocate it as you are likely to lose. Your argument is that you ticked no to PPI on the original application form. Theirs will be that it was sold perfectly willingly during a subsequent telephone conversation, which is evidenced by the fact that you never once queried the monthly PPI which appeared clearly on every statement. 12 years (or whatever) later, you have forgotten doing so. However, the law requires them to destroy customer information when it is no longer thought necessary to keep it. They do not expect people to buy insurance policies and then come back over a decade later claiming they didn't. Hence they have long since destroyed calls from that date. Unfortunate, but they are only following the law. Up to you whether you think your argument is strong enough but the burden of proof is on you and there are court costs etc.. . to consider if you lose.
  11. Hortz
    On what grounds do you think you are entitled to it back? You can't get it back just because you have it and neither can any third party. If you have reasons you may as well spend five minutes typing out a letter to explain them and sticking a stamp on it. Be aware that if you do get offered anything, you probably won't see it as they will be likely to offset against the arrears on your loan.
  12. Hortz
    PPI is not and never has been a case of anyone "owing" anyone money. It is not some kind of contractual arrangement whereby they are obliged to pay money to people as is the repayment of a loan. The customer contact letters are about advising people of their right to raise a complaint if they feel there was wrongdoing, which will then be investigated on its own merits.
  13. Hortz
    Agreed, most don't help themselves by failing to use recorded delivery for one. If the intended recipient can show they were living at another address at the time then the argument will fail. However, the FCA/FOS will not accept the generic "publicity" argument as a reason to timebar. Hence, a personalised letter is the most practical alternative.
  14. Hortz
    It would need not just a change in the law but a retrospective one. Which is, in itself, illegal. Hence why it's never going to happen.
  15. Hortz
    Nail>>>>head Nearly all of the main banks have withdrawn from ongoing negotiations with the FCA about this issue and the above is why.
  16. Hortz
    With contractual interest and statutory interest it is really one or the other depending on the card balance at the time. If contractual interest was charged at 30% then that should be refunded. However, if you paid the balance in full most months then little contractual interest would have been charged. In those circumstances you would get FOS interest instead as you would have had a credit balance without the PPI. Most offers contain some element of each. As per the above, without full statement details it's difficult to advise any further.
  17. Hortz
    With contractual interest and statutory interest it is really one or the other depending on the card balance at the time. If contractual interest was charged at 30% then that should be refunded. However, if you paid the balance in full most months then little contractual interest would have been charged. In those circumstances you would get FOS interest instead as you would have had a credit balance without the PPI. Most offers contain some element of each. As per the above, without full statement details it's difficukt to advise any further.
  18. Hortz
    No personal interest at all. I just speak the facts. If someone has valid grounds for complaint then I'm perfectly willing to assist them. But part of doing so is pointing out pitfalls they may face. However, I have no truck with the bandwagon compensation culture. Your original post gave no ground for complaint so I pointed that out. I still think you could do with being more specific I.e are they saying they don't think they ever asked for the cover at all, or they did but we're not given full information and if so what specific dialogue went on at point of sale?
  19. Hortz
    The problem with this argument is it is pretty well impossible to prove one way or the other. If most of the people complaining has questioned the PPI when it first appeared on their statements then they'd be within their rights to expect answers. But the vast majority have had the product for several years before claiming they never asked for it. Banks are obliged under the DPA to destroy information when they consider they are unlikely to have any further use for it and how long to keep it is a tricky balancing act. In that instance it becomes virtually impossible to determine whether they are correct, or whether they have just forgotten about it, or whether they are making it up. I have had some personal experience in this sector and have seen any number of people swear they never asked for the product, only for a call recording or similar to turn up proving they did. I even recall one person who swore he had never asked for his PPI and then when the signed paperwork was provided, turned round and said "oh yes I remember now, they told me it was compulsory". If PPI was added without your request and you really want answers it is best to pursue it straight away. Mind you, it is doubtful you would get anywhere, would probably just be dismissed as an "admin error".
  20. Hortz
    What have you actually authorised them to complain about? Because they are entitled to their cut of any redress which arises as a result of their complaint. It is true that with a single premium policy, if the loan is refinanced early, you will pay more in repayments and interest on the subsequent loan as a result of the less than proportionate rebate, even if the later loan had no PPI. The FCA requires redress calculations to take this into account. Because the total amount is all a result of their complaint then they are entitled to a cut on all of it. Loan B is, from what you've said, a separate issue but obviously if you authorised them to complain about that then they will take a cut of that as well. I am no fan of CMCs whatsoever but I doubt if you are going to be able to get out of this one I am afraid. If you don't pay them then expect to have to argue your point in court.
  21. Hortz
    1. Do you actually have any valid grounds for complaint? You haven't given any so far. Just writing to them and asking for money is likely to elicit a response along the lines of "we're a business not a charity, if you wanna beg there are plenty of shop doorways out there". If you have then you need to state them. Don't use template letters, they are obvious a mile off and just make you out to be a chancer rather than someone who has genuine grounds for complaint. 2. Like anyone else, they will investigate the complaint fully. They are not just going to hand out money because you ask for it. If they feel your complaint is nonsense they will say so. Thus far there's not much more than that to say since you haven't given any indication what you're proposing to complain about. Complaining about charges is a waste of time, the court case several years ago ruled they were not unlawful and FOS will not consider complaints about the matter. Unless you're in serious financial hardship and even then it would only be out of pure goodwill.
  22. Hortz
    PPI shouldn't be rolled into the mortgage. Does it actually say that on your statement? On the other hand things such as a higher lending charge might be. PPI would generally be a separate debit. MIRAS stands for mortgage interest relief at source, it is tax relief that used to be available on the interest paid on your mortgage (this would be deducted from your total income for tax purposes). However, this too was removed some years ago.
  23. Hortz
    True, it is basically a fishing exercise. Sounds reasonable, a number of banks are currently undertaking cold case reviews as a result of changes in policy, errors being identified, FCA audits or FOS decisions. See above Probably Very doubtful, if they had no reason to doubt the original decision they'd have just told them to naff off. No, but you need to get it in writing from Barclays that it was a proactive cold case review on their part with no part played by the CMC. Depends whether they actually have carried out any necessary work or not. As per the above I strongly suspect not and if that's the case then I for one don't think he should be paying them anything. This might be the best idea!!!
  24. Hortz
    No. It's nonsense propogated by CMCs to try and keep people paying them silly fees for something that is exceptionally easy to do on your own. FOS stats show no difference in the uphold rates between direct complaints and CMC ones. From one who knows, I would say it's more like the opposite way round. Direct complaints from the customer in their own words come across as more sincere. By contrast, when you've seen the same CMC template letter making the same standardised allegations for the 100th time it's hard not to think "pull the other one son"!!! Incidentally and ironically, if the CMC told your brother that he was more likely to win the case with them than by himself then they have missold him their services and he should complain about it. Their own regulator's rules forbid them from doing this.
  25. Hortz
    To be blunt, do you even know if they have had PPI with the mortgage or are you just trying it on? It would be very unusual to have a mortgage PPI policy that was, as you have stated, added to the mortgage with interest charged. Or one that expires before the term of the mortgage (MPPI usually runs until you cancel it). Also, you can't not be aware that you are paying for one of these policies, you have to sign a separate direct debit mandate and it comes out of your bank account monthly. It's like saying you didn't know you were paying your car insurance. If I've got this wrong and you know for a fact that they did actually have a single premium MPPI policy then by all means send your letter, it will probably do the job. But otherwise I would rethink this one. These complaint handlers see dozens of cases per week and can spot a cut and paste template letter a mile off. Also there's nothing that convinces them your complaint is a try-on as much as trying to apply complaint reasons which clearly aren't relevant.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...