Sorry I don't understand the points your making in your 1st two paras. As for your final point; people rent out property for all sorts of reasons but in the main it's for profit so you'll excuse me if I don't fall over myself to "appreciate" someone for having the good grace to allow me to pay heir mortgage for them. And the reason many cannot afford to buy their own home (and so are forced to rent) is because the buy to let debacle that's been rumbling for years has distorted the market to such a degree that many are now priced out of the market. It is hard to feel "appreciation" for the very people who are preventing me from buying my own home.

I'm glad to see this getting press coverage but unless LAs actually provide a meaningful service to tenants (e.g. finding them a property) then they shouldn't be allowed to charge tenants anything. All the stuff they do is on behalf of the LL and so the LL should foot the bill (which of course they do but for some reason it's deemed acceptable for LAs to charge twice).

Hmmm, I wonder how may members of parliament rent their homes? I respectfully disagree that it's equitable, certainly when it comes to LLs wanting to seek posession of their property. As it stands the lack of flexibility given to Ts who have been served notice makes it highly likely that they will for a time have to pay rent on 2 properties (unless they get very lucky and find a place that's available on the same day that the notice period ends). This is grossly unfair.

As suggested by ims I would recommend calculating what the redress should be yourself. Following my PPI complaint RBS (Natwest) made an offer that was some way short of what I had calculated. After a bit of back and forth (and them not budging) this is now with the FOS. I strongly suspect that they are making low offers safe in the knowledge that a high proportion of people will just accept on the basis that either they don't have the time or inclination to calculate an accurate figure themselves or because they would rather settle for a lower sum without further aggravation or having to wait longer.

Phil, sounds sensible, I'll do as you suggest ims, I said in my last letter to RBS that it was my assumption that there had been no rebate for PPI. They have not challenged this assumption (all of their letters have been the standard offer letter, no direct answers to my questions etc. I guess no great surprise given the number of complaints they're handling). Also they have made an offer on the 3rd of my loans which doesn't even have associated PPI so I've taken this as tacit acknowledgement that PPI has been rolled from one loan to the next (or at least from loan 2 to loan 3). Thanks for your input folks

OK following a letter, RBS have stumped up for the 3rd loan account. So now the outstanding issue is that offers are too low! I'm pretty concerned that the FOS aren't going to be helpful. RBS have stated repeatedly that their offers are calculated in accordance with FOS guidelines and have provided a "sample calculation sheet" with their latest offers. The problem is this sample calculation doesn't show how PPI that gets rolled into subsequent consolidation loans is handled. I suspect the FOS are either getting the wool pulled over their eyes or are just too busy to spend time on any cases that aren't straightforward. Either way if my suspicions are correct they are effectively helping RBS to avoid paying what they owe (given the widespread selling of single source PPI and consolidation loans there must be stacks of people in a similar position to me). I'll go back tot he FOS and if as I suspect the response isn't helpful it will be court (and a complaint to the FOS).

Hi Phil, thanks, I've done exactly that. Just checked the case you referenced (first I'd heard of it). The FOS letter states that all I'm accepting is the general approach to calculating compensation and it goes on to say that I have the right to refer to the ombudsman as "the final stage" and that it's hoped this isn't necessary. So as far as I and the FOS are concerned the ombudsman hasn't enforced any kind of award yet and so hopefully RBS would have no chance relying on Andrews v SBJ (although I dare say they would give it a go!). thanks again

Thanks Ali. I don't have too many doubts that I'll get there in the end. It's just a real test of patience!

Letters received. No surprises really, they have basically calculated offers for two loans as if I'd had rebates on PPI when those loans had been subsumed by subsequent loans. Of course there was no rebate and the PPI was rolled into the subsequent loans. They previously made an offer relating to a third loan which had no PPI policy but which had been used to pay off the two previous loans (which did have PPI). They have now mysteriously withdrawn their offer for this third loan. The reason they've paid before acceptance is because the FOS process is stupid (or at best misleading). The letter from them says the bank will be making an offer calculated in accordance with their guidelines and that if I wish to accept this offer (despite not knowing what it is yet!?) I don't have to do anything and the bank will be in touch with details of the offer. I called the FOS at the time and was assured that this simply meant "accepting" the FOS's general approach to calculating compensation and not the value of the offer itself. The RBS letter then starts "Thank you for accepting our offer via the FOS". The FOS letter says I have to go back to RBS if I am not happy and then revert to them if things are still unresolved. I will go down this route (no doubt this will take several more months) and if I don't get anywhere it will be court.

Hi, sorry i didn't see your post before. Not good news; a large amount of money appeared in my bank account today (ok, that doesn’t sound like bad news but read on). The value is the sum of 2 of the original offers so the overall offer is actually LESS than it was before!? Presumably a letter is on its way describing the offer so once I have that it will be back to the FOS. I’m seriously considering the court route now. I'll see what the FOS do first though.

They claimed they hadn't received one of my letters (sent recorded so I know they got it). I have to say the other 2 or 3 letters I've sent to them regarding PPI have received responses within the required time scales. I would only communicate with them via recorded delivery letter. Too easy for them to deny all knowledge of telephone calls.

Natwest/RBS are in the habit of making offers that are some way short of what they should be. I would take the time to calculate what the amount should be before accepting (assuming you haven't already done so).

Wait for Natwest/RBS to write back and say they're sticking to their guns first (as they almost certainly will). The FOS require that you exhaust the financial institutions own complaints process before going to them. Then send the FOS a complaints form and a PPI questionnaire: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/complaints.htm#3

They tried the same with me, their offer was just slightly more than the value of the PPI premiums (on two loans) so not accounting for all the interest I've paid or the 8% statutory interest. I've complained to the FOS and am now awaiting another offer. I've seen a few other threads saying the same thing so it's obviously a deliberate tactic. I'll be pointing this out the the FOS in due course, I'd recommend that others do the same.

Thanks, like I said I'll update when there's any news. Hopefully their response will give you an idea as to how they'll approach your case.