Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

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 is a nonsense for the following reasons: [1] I've completed and returned a FOS questionnaire which makes clear the basis on which I think the PPI was mis-sold – essentially, I applied for the credit card online and was unable to proceed with my application if I unticked a pre-ticked box requesting PPI. This being the case, it seems clear to me that the PPI was mis-sold and whatever the FCA guidance might / might not turn out to be apropos Plevin and the role of undisclosed commissions is irrelevant. [2] Notwithstanding [1], I applied for this credit card in October 1999, ie long before Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 kicked in, and the account was settled in full long before April 2008 when the legislation began to apply regardless of when an agreement was entered into. In these circumstances, it seems to me nonsensical for Canada Square Operations to refuse to consider my claim and instead invite me to go straight to the FOS, whereby they would, I believe, incur a fee in excess of £500 to investigate a complaint which I am confident would be upheld. Aside from the annoyance / inconvenience it would cause me [waiting for the Ombudsman's ruling], I can't see what possible motivation Canada Square Operations could have for taking this course of action. With this in mind, I'm minded to write back making the very same points I've made above but, before doing so, would welcome the thoughts and opinions of my fellow CAGgers. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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 offsetting a successful claim for mis-sold PPI against any debt with the bank - for instance, you can't offset compensation for mis-sold PPI on a loan against a defaulted bank account, but if the same loan account was in default the bank could legitimately offset it against that. My experience and, moreover, my impression from reading lots of threads on here is that the banks will plead ignorance of this detail and attempt to offset against any debt with the group.
  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 original credit agreements. However, I understand that under sections 77, 78 & 79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 a borrower can demand a copy of their credit agreement. What I am unable to ascertain – and would, therefore, appreciate some clarity on – is whether this applies when the agreement has been paid off some considerable time ago, ie more than six years. Moreover, if the aforementioned legislation doesn't entitle me to obtain a copy of such credit agreements, can anyone suggest an alternative mechanism via which I may be able to obtain copies of them? Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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 concerns above, as you point out even where a compliant is affected by the unfair commission issue, this will not trigger a refund of all premiums but, rather, the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission actually paid. Given I'm adamant my policy was mis-sold, for a multitude of reasons, as you suggest, this is not overly helpful to me. At the same time, Santander's correspondence makes it very clear the sale of the policy involved an undisclosed commission and, it seems to me, this could be helpful –*Santander maintain the sale was non-advised, yet concede the shop assistant who sold it may have received a commission for doing so. In light of this and the well-documented concerns about the sale of PPI policies by agents of GE Capital at this time, it seems to me there's a very strong case to be made that my recollection of events – in essence, that it was recommended I should sign up for this policy [by someone who would be rewarded should I do so] – is likely to be more reliable than that of a Santander complaint handler who, plainly, was not there at the time. Again, I'd be interested to her whether my fellow CAGers think there's any merit in this line of attack. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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 can't find anything to suggest the FCA is set to reveal its position any time soon and, this being the case, hoped a fellow CAGer might be able to shed some more light on this - in particular, how the FCA's decision might potentially advantage my claim and when we might expect some kind of announcement from the FCA. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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 talking about. His view was that I could only pursue the broker, ie London Scottish, and that as they were in administration but beyond the remit of the FSCS that was the end of the road. I asked him if, this being the case, I could pursue the underwriter - on the basis of whatever code they might have been signed up to at the time I took out the PPI - and his response was that this wasn't an option. However, I'm thought FOS guidance said otherwise and am far from convinced this advice is correct. In these circumstances, I would, as ever, appreciate the thoughts of my fellow CAGgers. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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 which was attributable to the outstanding PPI on the previous loan. For instance, if it's the former - which I'm guessing it is - then it amounts to just over three per cent of each of the repayments on my second loan, while if it's the latter it amounts to just less than five per cent. I appreciate that, in the great scheme of things, it probably won't make a great deal of difference but for my own piece of mind would like to get my figures right. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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. Thanks in anticipation Fred_Funk
  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...