Jump to content

Fred_Funk

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

72 Excellent

About Fred_Funk

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. 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
  2. Canada Square Operations are saying my complaint could be impacted by the guidance the FCA is working on in light of Plevin and that they won't be able to consider it until this is published. I think this is a smokescreen, as my claim doesn't cite Plevin and, in any case, falls outside the timeframe for it to come into play. At the same time, I'm aware of the FOS backlog and, that being the case, keen to make Canada Square Operations see sense and consider my complaint now [thereby avoiding the £500-plus fee they will incur if I take it to the FOS].
  3. Canada Square Operations are citing the Financial Conduct Authority's regulatory review in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Plevin as a justification for being unable to consider my claim for mis-sold PPI on an Egg credit card until such time as the FCA publishes its guidance. Let me be clear, it's not that Canada Square Operations have rejected my claim but have said they will revisit it in light of any additional rules / guidance deemed necessary by the FCA. Rather, they have said they won't even consider it until the FCA publishes its conclusions. Now, it seems to me this
  4. As I understand it, RBS got a judgement at some point in 2015, as a result of which they're no longer obliged to pay the statutory interest component of a successful claim to someone who has an outstanding debt with them. Details of this judgement are hard to find, but I've spoken to the FOS who confirm it to be the case. At the same time, if you find yourself in this situation, I'd suggest it's worth taking a few minutes to look at the following FOS judgement: http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=5623 Essentially, it's not as simple as offset
  5. I'm about to submit FOS questionnaires pertaining to a couple very old credit card accounts. I believe the PPI associated with each of these cards was mis-sold for a number of reasons. At the same time, I signed up for both these cards 20-odd years ago and, that being the case, my recollection of exactly what happened is a little bit hazy. With that in mind, I have sent off Subject Access Requests in the hope that it might shed a little more light on proceedings before I complete the questionnaires. I appreciate these are unlikely to yield a copies, even reconstituted ones, of my ori
  6. Thanks for your input mightymouse_69. What you've said and your link pretty much confirm what I'd already deduced, though I do now have a few supplementary thoughts and questions. [1] Your link suggests the Plevin judgement relied on Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which was inserted by the Consumer Credit Act 2006. Given my PPI policy dates from the 1990s, it seems unlikely this legislation applies to my policy, unless, that is, there's any scope for it to be applied retrospectively. Any thoughts anyone might have on this would be very welcome. [2] Notwithstanding my c
  7. Hi! I've just received a rejection letter from Santander, apropos a Principles store card dating back to the 1990s. I'm adamant the PPI attatched to this was mis-sold on a number of levels and have every intention of pursuing this – as far as court should it prove necessary. In the meantime, with it being some time since I've made any PPI claims I'm a little bit out of the loop and would appreciate any more information on where, exactly, we're at with regard to the Financial Conduct Authority's investigation into undisclosed commissions. I've done a good bit of Googling but c
  8. My partner was mis-sold PPI on a hire purchase agreement for a car. I want to SAR the finance company involved before commencing court action and, that being the case, was hoping someone could point me in the direction of the most appropriate template letter. I've had a quick look around and found the one on this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?118145-Full-SAR-for-ppi Just wondered if an even better one has, subsequently, been posted anywhere. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  9. ims21 Thanks for your reply. I understand the procedure you've outlined above. The only thing I'm not entirely clear on is whether I calculate the proportion of the new loan attributable to carried-over PPI on the basis of: [1] the new loan amount; or [2] the total amount to be repaid with the new loan. Clearly, if it's [1] the percentage figure - which will form the basis for my calculations - will be markedly higher than if it's [2]. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  10. Rang the FSCS today and was transferred to Deloitte, who it seems are dealing with claims for mis-sold PPI on behalf of the FSCS. Guy I spoke to was adamant that they couldn't consider any claims dating from before January 14, 2005 [when PPI sales were first regulated by the FSA]. Indeed he was so adamant about this that I'm inclined to believe that, at least in this respect, he knew what he was talking about. However, when quizzed further on who, if anyone, I might pursue my claim with, he was very vague and failed completely to inspire any confidence that he knew what he was talkin
  11. Not entirely sure what a PCM is but I paid my PPI premium to London Scottish, who are now in administration. My question is whether the FSCS will look at claims, such as this one, dating from pre 2005 [when PPi sales were first regulated by the FSA]?!
  12. Guys I'm now back on the case with this thread and, as ever, looking for your help. It transpires that I had three loans from Black Horse and a proportion of both the second and third ones was attributable to the outstanding [mis-sold] PPI on the previous loans. This being the case, I am aware that I can also seek repayment of this element of the loans. However, I am unclear as to whether I should make my calculations on the basis of: [1] the proportion of the loan that was attributable to the outstanding PPI on the previous loan; or [2] the proportion of the total repayments wh
  13. Hi guys! It's like this... Does anyone know if the Financial Services Compensation Scheme [FSCS] will now consider claims for mis-sold PPI dating from before January 14, 2005 [when PPI sales were first regulated by the FSA]. I know at one point they wouldn't but was wondering whether this remains the case given: [1] The FSA website states that the codes of the Association of British Insurers and, from 2001-2005, the General Insurance Standards Council were applicable to sales of PPI; and moreover [2] the judicial review brought by the BBA has now upheld this approach by the FSA.
  14. Keen to get this claim up and running again. Given it's more than six months since Mallard's response - see above - would I be best advised to write to them again, offering them an opportunity to settle, before initiating any court action?! Also, can someone please point me in the direction of the best spreadsheet for calculating the amount owed should I pursue this to court. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  15. Right, I've finally got a bit of time on my hands and intend to get my LBA in the post this week. Without fail. That being the case, can someone more knowledgeable than myself - like, for instance, ims21 - please confirm, again, that the first spreadsheet attached to post #5 will be acceptable. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
×
×
  • Create New...