Jump to content

mightymouse_69

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mightymouse_69 last won the day on August 5 2010

mightymouse_69 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About mightymouse_69

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Not quite - and just to clarify: On credit card/ store card PPI, you only get 8% in certain circumstances. As the ombudsman service website says: "The addition of interest (usually at our normal rate of 8% per year simple) on any credit balance for any periods when the reconstructed account would have been in credit."
  2. Or ought reasonably to have become aware. If they've been sending statements showing PPI, then depending upon what your complaint point is, this could time bar the complaint.
  3. You can still buy them. A few high street banks (like HSBC) provide long term income protection. However most are provided by insurers themselves. Short term protection - such as the policy you had, is also still available. You do get a few complaints about compromise agreements. But from what I've seen, they're rarely successful.
  4. This is clearly not PPI. It's income protection. PPI is a policy which is linked to a specific line of credit. It will pay out a specific benefit in the event of a claim - normally the monthly repayments to the debt the policy covers (or a percentage of the amount in some cases). Note that this means the policy holder probably won't see any of the money paid out in a claim. It will go straight to paying off the protected debt. This is a defining feature of PPI. Income Protection is different. It pays out a previously agreed sum of money. In this case, that figure could be as high as 50% of the OP's monthly income. The OP would see this money - it would be paid to them to do with as s/he wishes. A successful mis-sale complaint would be tricky. You'd have a hard time proving that you were told that entering into a compromise agreement wouldn't be a bar to claiming.
  5. I'll go against the general advice on this thread - I'd say that it is best to give as much information as possible. For credit card PPI, sick pay can be a game changer. The OP said he can't remember and can't find out. But for anyone else looking here, if you know how much you had, or you can find out easily - you should provide this information. I'd also suggest that it's risky going down the lines of suggesting that you remember nothing from the sale of the policy if your main reason to complain is about not knowing you had the policy. You've essentially just said that your recollection of the time is non-existent. You say you didn't know you had the policy... but you also say you can't remember anything else either.
  6. It's quite likely that it was front loaded - looking at the time it was sold and the business. I was just clarifying that this isn't always the case. How many hours a week were you working?
  7. No it isn't. It can be funded by a single premium (which you describe as front loaded) or by a regular monthly premium.
  8. They are asking the questions to help answer your complaint. Some people are slightly suspicious - but its standard practice. If you don't provide any more information, they'll just answer your complaint using the information they have. If your complaint isn't upheld and you go to FOS, they'll be asking the same questions.
  9. In some of your post, you talk about the consumer not getting a fair deal. However the quote you gave me (above) is from a business saying that FOS is skewed in favour of the consumer. But say you get what you want - and a court can have a final say. What effect would this have? Well, currently, the FOS considers the following when making a decision: "fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each individual case. We take into account the law, rules, codes and good practice" But, if what is mentioned in the above quote happens, you get rid of the fair and reasonable part. Instead it comes down o the letter of the law. That's puts ordinary consumers at a huge disadvantage. Looking at a well known scandal - PPI - you'd have seen very few complaints upheld. Businesses normally did what was required of them when selling these policies. It is the Ombudsman's ability to look at what is 'fair and reasonable' in a certain case which allows many of these complaints to be upheld. So while you've said that you wouldn't replace the Ombudsman with a court - your suggestion would effectively do just that. And here's a massive issue. The part in bold that is. What's to stop businesses pushing the case to court - effectively forcing those who don't want to deal with the complexity of courts or who can afford to do so have to drop their case. Also - customer evidence is taken into account. It's just that often, the evidence provided by customers just isn't as good as they think it is. To me, the current situation is just fine. If you want to have you case dealt with by a court you can. If you want to go to the Ombudsman you can. If you want to go to the Ombudsman and then to court if you don't get the answer you want - you can.
  10. Those proposals were implemented - so you do have group charging for the bigger businesses. As for right of appeal to a court. That would run totally against the idea of having an Ombudsman service. The idea is that they are an alternative dispute resolution provider. The very crux of that is that they are an alternative means of resolving disputes. If people want to go to court, then they can do so. A lot decide not to - because an Ombudsman offers a less formal, free and normally quicker alternative.
  11. If he was aware that he would be going self employed when he brought the card and policy, then this could be a concern. Depending on whether the policy terms for self-employed people were bad (not all were). Another issue is the back problems - so this is something which should be mentioned too.
  12. Depends on whether you can show that you paid more than they've offered. Your mother in law may well have spent more on the card then your wife did. She might not have paid off her balance by the same amount each month. There're plenty of reasons why different amounts would be offered.
  13. Are you sure you had three separate policies? With linked cards, you usually just have the one policy.
×
×
  • Create New...