Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to converse with us Drays...   i will guess you have NOT received a claimform pack from northants bulk but merely a letter of claim from BW legal.   you respond by following Post 4 here: do NOT use their reply pack. but you MUST reply. follow Exactly as post 4 i would suggest the reason as: the alleged debt concerns a dispute for failure to provide a reliable service ( put nothing else at this stage)       JCI buy these old telecom debts up because sadly so many people wet themselves thinking they are owed and JCI have magical powers...when they don't. the debt is subject to a valid dispute.   there are number threads here regarding them.. https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-8889411648654839:3134625398&q=JC Talk talk&oq=JC Talk talk&gs_l=partner-generic.3...801398.805115.0.805375.12.12.0.0.0.0.121.799.10j2.12.0.csems%2Cnrl%3D13...0.3728j1478984j13...1.34.partner-generic..12.0.0.zyRD3vNgDww
    • Dear PIXeL_92 It has been explained to you in previous correspondence that the roof tiles that are the subject of your complaint, at the time of inspection were heavily covered in moss. It is in your agreed terms that the surveyor will not carry out an asbestos survey and is not required to scrape away moss if the surface below is obscured. The surveyor will carry out only a visual inspection and comment on defects visible at the time of inspection. Roofs can fail at any time particularly in periods of inclement weather. As stated in your report, the surveyor confirmed that the roof was in a satisfactory condition at the time of inspection therefore would not require replacement in the immediate future. The subject building is a utility building and is not a habitable room of the main property. As previously explained, tiles on an outbuilding of this nature would not affect the property value. You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor. You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos. Our surveyor revisited your property and confirmed that you have had the damaged roof tiles replaced. A roof that contains asbestos will only become a health and safety risk if it is disturbed and it therefore seems odd that the roofing contractor was happy to replace the tiles if in fact asbestos was present. We understand that raising a complaint and progressing to legal action as you have suggested you wish to do can be a lengthy drawn-out and expensive process with no guarantee of success. If necessary, we will notify our legal team to address this matter on our behalf however, we are happy to attempt to settle this matter in advance to avoid prolonged communications and extending this matter for many more months. In an effort to conclude this matter to the satisfaction of all parties, we shall increase our goodwill offer to £500 in full and final settlement of this matter. This offer will be available until Thursday 27 August 2020. There will be no further offers made after this date. I look forward to your response. Yours sincerely, Walker Dunn MRICS   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear Walker Dunn,   Apologies on the delayed reply unfortunately I had to attend to some personal matters that left me unable to reply to emails.   A few points I want to make regarding your previous letter.   You mention at the time of the inspection that the surface of the tiles was covered in moss and obscured the view of the tiles, we however have pictures from when we moved in showing this was not the case, whilst there is moss on the tiles it in no way obscured to the point that the material would have been assessed incorrectly and you can also see the curling of the edges to a large amount of the tiles and this is a characteristic of asbestos.   You state in the report that the roof was in satisfactory condition, however, if the roof was indeed slate that your report indicated this would have been correct however the curled edges of asbestos tiles indicate that they are fatigued and need replacing and that is not satisfactory condition, again the material was not identified correctly at the time of the report.   As for this point "You state you would have factored in the cost of removal/replacement into the purchase offer however as advised at the time of inspection the tiles were in a satisfactory condition and you have not sought to replace the tiles in the three years following the date of inspection. This confirms the comments provided by the surveyor."   We had put away money to have this done, at the time as it was deemed slate in your report we didn't prioritise this as a repair, as you know the roof of the main property was in an awful state and was leaking into the bedroom this took priority along with having all the plumbing in the bathroom replaced as we discovered it was stuffed with kitchen roll under the bath to hide a set of leaking pipes that eventually made its way into the kitchen. We then also had a passing in the family that took us away from the local area for around a month and then my partners dad became homeless due to a gas explosion that destroyed his property so we had to accommodate him for a year and half so most work we had planned got put on hold. This doesn't confirm your comments in your report, this just allows you to assume it did as it wasn't done straight away however this was not the case. We have all the paperwork and invoices to show the above work was done to the main property along with pictures along with all the details surrounding the gas explosion.   We don't agree that part of a building being a habitable room of the main property makes a difference in our case, of course any structure on a property would affect the properties overall value when offers are being made as you make your offer based on the overall property and if you wanted to use the outbuilding for a specific reason you would be more inclined to go for a property that dose have an outbuilding over one that doesn't or if you want another example one with a swimming pool selling for a higher amount as that is considered a premium.   You then say "You have previously stated that the roof became damaged due to high winds and the roofing specialist you instructed to replace the broken tiles made you aware of the possibility that the tiles may contain asbestos. However, you have not yet had the tiles tested to confirm the presence of asbestos."   We had the roofer come and take a look instructing him that we wanted two slate tiles replacing due to us believing at the time the roof was slate based on your report, he then mentioned from a simple visual inspection that they are in fact asbestos. He said he could replace them with two slate tiles but we would have dispose of the two slipped asbestos ones safely as he wasn't licensed to do so, they were removed in a safe manor to avoid cracking them due to how brittle they were.   We have at several times offered to have them tested for you if you would cover the costs of testing if they are in fact asbestos tiles but this simple question has still remained un answered, so for this reason we have now booked a test and this will be added to the costs we will be pursing if and when we are forced to go down the legal route along with all legal cost and the cost of disposal and replacement of the roof, as mentioned before I just wanted the disposal costs covered, but our solicitor has now advised us we should be entitled to have the full costs awarded so we are left in the same place financially along with the roof material matching the report.   Our next step would be to have the test results come back, and send those tests results if they come back as positive with the invoice and three quotes for removal of asbestos to yourselves to decide if you want to cover those costs or if you wish to continue with legal proceedings and as mentioned before if we have to issue legal proceedings we will be asking for all costs to be covered and a complaint to the RICS and Ombudsman will also be issued.   Unfortunately at this point we are rejecting your £500 settlement but if you decided you wanted to settle it without facing any potential legal action or complaint we would settle for the sum of £2000 and that will be the matter resolved, we believe this to be a fair amount as the testing has now cost us £150 and the mid range quote has come in at £1900.   Regards   Robert Atkins   ******************************************************************************************************************************************************************   Dear PIXeL_92 I refer to your email sent on 7th September. I am disappointed and dismayed that you have decided to not accept our very reasonable offer. We have now notified our legal team in preparation should you decide to proceed along the legal route. You have told us you are receiving legal advice, therefore I am sure that your solicitor will have explained to you that in matters of alleged negligence, if the court finds in your favour, they can only make an award on the basis of diminution of value and not the cost of repairs.   Therefore to quantify the diminution in value you would need to obtain a report from another surveying firm that identifies the value of your property three years ago with a slate roof to the outbuilding and the value of the property three years ago with an asbestos roof to the outbuilding. To do this effectively, the surveyor would have to identify comparable properties in the area with and without such roofs to be able to justify his findings. This would be no easy task.   To further complicate matters, the guidelines set out for the court are that they only award losses based upon diminution of value that exceed 5% of the property value, which is considered a reasonable margin of error for surveyor to work within. In this instance therefore, you would be required to identify a loss in excess of £6,000. This figure does not include your legal costs. Because this is a claim for alleged negligence and not for a debt, it is not a matter that can be dealt with by the Small Claims Court, it would have to be heard by a higher court. This would mean we would then be able to claim the costs of our barrister, solicitor and any experts for however many days the hearing lasts, plus you would have your own costs, if you were unable to prove your claim. Once you submit a claim, you are unable to then back out without incurring costs. I hope you find this advice helpful and I am sure that if you present this letter to your solicitor, he will be able to verify whether the above information is correct. We will await your response on how you intend to proceed. Yours sincerely, Colin Walker MRICS
    • Sorry for the text heavy post, we are getting nowhere with them, I need some help deciding our next steps, I have a couple more emails as PDFs that I need to attach below.   Dear PIXel_92, We confirmed in our previous email that our offer would be made available until Friday 14 August 2020. This offer was presented as a gesture of goodwill based on the information you have provided in support of your claim. Thus far, we have not had sight of a Specialist Report confirming the presence of Asbestos or quotations for the required works. Since you have not furnished us with any additional information we are unable to provide any further comments on the matter at this time. If you’re able to provide the requested information we will be happy to review the matter and discuss it further with you. Kind regards, Customer Relations ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   I have on two occasions offered to have it tested further than a visual inspection but if it comes back as asbestos you cover the costs, you asked me for the costs involved in getting it tested and you neither agreed to nor declined to cover that cost if it came back as asbestos, again I am happy to have it tested but if it comes back as asbestos to have those costs covered.   I have sent communication from a roofer on headed paper confirming they belive it to be asbestos but they aren't registered to remove it.   I am happy to get three formal quotes written on paper and provide them, I have spoken to a roofer that deals in asbestos that was here to do another job at the time and he said just going off rough size it would be approximately £2000 to remove the roof and dispose of the asbestos. I will get some quotes over the next week and get back to you with them.   Regards ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Dear Walker Dunn,   Could I please get confirmation regarding if you are going to cover the cost of testing if it does come back as positive before I go ahead with it.   I now have 3 quotes for removal of the asbestos too.   My solicitors has also forwarded me this to read through, https://www.rics.org/uk/upholding-professional-standards/regulation/how-we-regulate/disciplinary-process/panel-hearings/disciplinary-panel-hearings/walker-dunn-limited-and-colin-walker/.   This will be our next step going to the RICS / property ombudsman as we seem to be getting nowhere and it has been going on for some time due to you not answering the above question.   If you don't answer it we can get it tested and look at legal action to recover the money at a later date if that's how you want to do it.   Regards **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************  
    • So you did...should have gone to specsavers......so as this debt is in your name only only a restriction type K can be placed on your share of the equity.   You have still not explain why " you dont actually own any equity "...you can PM if you rather this was not divulged on the open topic....as this may be important and possibly stop any interim charge.....subject to your response.
    • unfortunately, under the statute of limitations Act, that has has been around for probably +100yrs, yes.
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 4 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

PPI from Loans.co.uk with FOS need help|!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3592 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi I filed a complaint about 16 months ago through the FOS. This was for a loan taken out with Loans.co.uk with GE Money. When I wrote to GE money to try and claim this back they told me that Loans.co.uk had sold the insurance policy to me so I wrote to Loans.co.uk and they said that we had agreed the PPI and that was the end of it. Anyway, my complaint form was sent to the FOS some 16 months ago. Today I have received a letter from the FOS saying that "this may be outside their jurisdiction, as the policy was from Cardiff Pinacle not Loans.co.uk. They are writing to Cardiff Pinacle to see who sold me the PPI.

 

I know that the loan was taken out through Loans.co.uk and they did all the leg work, ie finding the loan and telling me how much the PPI was. As far as I can remember I never spoke to Cardiff Pinacle this was all dealt with by Loans.co.uk. Loans.co.uk even say on a letter I have that they sold me the PPI insurance.

 

I am so worried now, I guess I need Cardiff Pinacle to tell the FOS that Loans.co.uk sold the PPI and not themselves. If this isn't the case will I have to start again as at the moment my claim is against Loans.co.uk and not Cardiff Pinacle. It has taken so long already and it seems I have got no where. Do the FOS sound to you as if they think I don't have a claim.

 

Sorry if this muddled, but hoping someone can help or has been in the same situation. X

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello tagal,

 

Hi I filed a complaint about 16 months ago through the FOS. This was for a loan taken out with Loans.co.uk with GE Money. When I wrote to GE money to try and claim this back they told me that Loans.co.uk had sold the insurance policy to me so I wrote to Loans.co.uk and they said that we had agreed the PPI and that was the end of it. Anyway, my complaint form was sent to the FOS some 16 months ago. Today I have received a letter from the FOS saying that "this may be outside their jurisdiction, as the policy was from Cardiff Pinacle not Loans.co.uk. They are writing to Cardiff Pinacle to see who sold me the PPI.

 

I know that the loan was taken out through Loans.co.uk and they did all the leg work, ie finding the loan and telling me how much the PPI was. As far as I can remember I never spoke to Cardiff Pinacle this was all dealt with by Loans.co.uk. Loans.co.uk even say on a letter I have that they sold me the PPI insurance.

 

I am so worried now, I guess I need Cardiff Pinacle to tell the FOS that Loans.co.uk sold the PPI and not themselves. If this isn't the case will I have to start again as at the moment my claim is against Loans.co.uk and not Cardiff Pinacle. It has taken so long already and it seems I have got no where. Do the FOS sound to you as if they think I don't have a claim.

 

Sorry if this muddled, but hoping someone can help or has been in the same situation.

 

Your case above sadly happens all the time. I would wait to see what the final outcome is from the FOS.

 

In the meantime it is important that you send Loans.co.uk a Subject Access Request if you have not already done so?

 

Template letter in here...Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request

 

Ask for all the data they hold on you with regard to your Loan including all the information on the PPI, letters, transcripts of phone calls, statements and a true copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) together with the terms and conditions that were applicable to your loan at the point of sale.

 

Also ask for a copy of the needs and wants/customer duty of care questionnaire that they should have completed at the point of sale to ensure the product namely PPI was in fact suitable for you and your needs.

 

When you send your Subject Access Request you should ask for evidence of the questions asked at the point of sale.

Please see this link for an example:.....http://wwwa.mbna.co.uk/insurance/files/CP0608_INSU_MB_LP_S.pdf

 

The aim of the game now is to gather all the relevant information so if the FOS cannot deal with your claim you still have the option of going to court but you will need to be well prepared with all the relevant documentation.

 

aa

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

------------------------------------------------

Bank charge successes:

Halifax - Full settlement incl interest.

HSBC - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 75% of claim.

RBS - Settlement, goodwill no admission of liability about 70% of claim.

2 ongoing claims for bank charges with HSBC with more to come. (Supreme Court ruling could have upset these claims) They did :mad:

PPI Successes

PPI 4 settlements on 9 loans. FOS involvement on 7 added on the 8 % Statutory interest another 30% to both.

2 claims settled in full with LV without FOS involvement.

2 claims settled in full with HSBC without FOS involvement

 

PPI Claims ongoing with:

Cap one Now with the FOS

Barclays. Paid up today 24/04/10 cheque received for over £4,500 and in the bank.

LTSB still have to decide on this as their SAR production was abysmal. Papers data mixed up documents missing etc

 

1 Complaint not upheld by FOS they said it was ICO issue. Complaint upheld by ICO. See this..

Post 290 from

***RBS PPI Claim Long fight but, WON***

 

Please do not PM me for advice as it may be sometime before I can respond.

 

Keep at them. Do not give way and do not accept all they tell you, they will delay and stall for as long as they can to prevent repaying you your mis-sold PPI.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alanalana, I am just worried that my claim should of been against Cardif Pinacle and not Loans.co.uk, although it was them as far as I am concerned that sold me the loan and PPI. I can remember back in Feb 08 I spoke to someone at Cardif Pinacle and they told me that no insurance documents had ever been sent to me and I should complain to the FOS I have the persons name written down that I spoke to. The thing is the loan and the PPI was sold by Loans.co.uk and this is why the complaint was about them. I never spoke to Cardiff Pinacle, just Loans.co.uk. I am not sure really what the FOS are saying, apart from that they are contacting Cardiff Pinacle to see who sold me the PPI. I am just so fed up that it has taken 16 months to now be told that I may not be able to claim for mis-selling from Loans.co.uk.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

Just an update.

 

Spoke to the FOS yesterday, case for PPI (Loans.co.uk). They told me that they are trying to claim back from Cardiff Pinnacle who were the insurance company.

 

The case has now been with the FOS for 19 months! they say they have a conference call booked between the FOS lawyers and Cardiff next week to discuss all cases (hundreds of cases). Unfortunately the PPI was taken out before 2005 and I am not sure that it is looking good. The only thing I do have is that someone from Cardiff actually told me that I was never sent any documentation for the policy and that I should complain to the FOS! I have given FOS her name but I don't have a date of the phone call as it was over a year ago, although I guess they record calls.

 

Wonder if anyone is in the same situation or could offer some advice. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Im in exactly the same boat as you, issued a claim through the courts only last Mondayfor refund of PPI with interest, now totals £9,400.

This will total £21.000 with the 8% statory iterest added at Court.

 

I spoke to Cardiff Pinnacle, (they have not replied to any of my letters since April 09) in May and they confirmed that they were unable to locate any Policy documents.Iasked if they would still hold information as far back as 1999 and was told the system would still show it as being issued.

 

G E have been appauling to deal with, I am sick to death with them now, backwards and forward passing it around the not answering letter, so now with the Court, will keep you up dated if you like.

This is for First National Bank in 1999 now owned by G E.

 

Have also another PPI claim issued for PPI totally £21.000.with GE / London Mortgage

 

P S Also have found on the net and I quote

 

"Burgess says to many policies were taken on board without sufficiant underwriting or checks arried out and hs accused Cardiff Pinnacle of dropping customers at the first sug an economic downturn

 

Burgess says "Pinnacle has been inept as it wrote high risk insurances without doing proper checks They did not determine from the onset whether polices were suitable to be underwritten They have not treated customers fairly and been driven by greed just when there may be people who will need these policies more that ever.

 

Good Luck

Bach

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

 

Cardif Pinnacle are part of Northern Rock depending on which number you call on the forms they send me each month.

 

I have a policy with them which I took out online for cover of £500 pm. When I made a claim they refused to payout the £500 and would only pay £375pm as this was all the loan was for. The cheaky buggers even checked with my bank that I still had the loan. Didn't matter that I have been paying them for near on 8 years the premium for £500 pm cover. I am having a bloody nightmare trying to get them to refund the difference in premiums and I would have all but given up if the difference didn't equate to nearly £850. And to top it all off they are still taking the premium for £500pm from my account even though I've asked them to correct it. I'm in between a rock and a hard place as if I cancel the DD they will use that as an excuse to stop paying me each month and if I report them they might just cancel the policy.

 

 

Anyway thanks

 

Scrapper Coco :cool:

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

 

Scrapper vs MBNA Partial Settlement Success. Saved £13,000 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc PPI Reclaim Success £5,500 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclaycard Partial Settlement Success. Saved £6,000 :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Tesco's FOS upheld complaint. Possible court action to get default removed

 

Scrapper vs Egg (Barclaycard) Awaiting FOS

 

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc Offered made & Refused. This means war :-x

Scrapper vs Barclaycard (Cabot) Waiting 4 years for CCA. Cabot advised irresolvable :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Intelligent Finance. Success

 

Scrapper vs Picture (Webb Resolutions) Success

 

 

Beginner's guide

 

Advice & opinions given by Scrapper are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Bach for you response.

 

I too am sick of this now, I am hoping the FOS can win this for everyone. If anything I would like Cardiff to have to pay out to the hundreds of people because of the dodgy way the policies were sold - especially with no documentation.

 

Yes, please let me know how your case goes and good luck. X

 

Scrapper, they will not admit to anything, have you thought about contacting the FOS for advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tagal

 

That's my next step, but I don't hold out much hope as you can bet your life it's in the T&C's somewhere I guarantee that.

 

It took them 5 months to send me a copy of my contract with them after request after request and I've still not got the T&C's I've requested a dozen times of more.

 

And I got the amount wrong. According to their premuim scale for the cover provided they actually owe me £1440 not £850 as previously thought.

 

Many thanks

 

Scrapper Coco :cool:

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

 

Scrapper vs MBNA Partial Settlement Success. Saved £13,000 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc PPI Reclaim Success £5,500 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclaycard Partial Settlement Success. Saved £6,000 :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Tesco's FOS upheld complaint. Possible court action to get default removed

 

Scrapper vs Egg (Barclaycard) Awaiting FOS

 

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc Offered made & Refused. This means war :-x

Scrapper vs Barclaycard (Cabot) Waiting 4 years for CCA. Cabot advised irresolvable :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Intelligent Finance. Success

 

Scrapper vs Picture (Webb Resolutions) Success

 

 

Beginner's guide

 

Advice & opinions given by Scrapper are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Another update.

 

The FOS inform me that their solicitors have spoken with Cardiff and are writing to them with their recommendations with regards to claiming back PPI. The FOS tell me the next step if Cardiff refuse is that they (FOS) will take it to court. So think still will have to wait a long time but they are still fighting for me and others in the same position.

 

Just another thing I got sent by Martin Lewis today:

Massive new PPI misselling crackdown. 185,000 rejected loan insurance reclaim cases may be reopened. Reclaim £1,000s now

If you've got or had a loan in the last six years, you could be entitled to £1,000s back. Even household names have been misselling Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) alongside their loans. Regulator crackdown: The FSA's announced 'tough new measures' saying 40% of single-premium policies, the most common type, sold since Jan 05 will be investigated & if missold, providers must offer customers refunds. Old cases reopened: It's also considering reopening 185,000 previously rejected complaints - no surprise after recent stats showed for lenders like Lloyds TSB, Egg & Capital One, over 90% of cases they rejected, got awarded compensation if they reached the Ombudsman

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya tagal

 

Yes there days are numbered as the FSA and FOS are getting tired of the fob offs the consumers are facing.

 

Have you read the latest article by the FSA in its entirerty makes interesting reading.

 

Good Luck to you

 

Regards

 

PF

If I have been of help to you please feel free to click my scales to the left Thanks.:)

I have no legal training and the advice I offer is what I have learnt here and offered as a matter of support. Before you commit to any Legal action you are advised to contact a qualified legal practitioner.

 

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 

CARTER V Co-Op

BANK CHARGES

REFUNDED £3567

 

POMPEYFAITH V Co-Op PPI

OFFER MADE BUT REFUSED

ONGOING AND STILL ONGOING

NOW WITH THE OMBUDSMAN

 

R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Hi Garyca, I spoke to the Ombudsman yesterday. The latest is that they have now heard from Pinnacle with regards to the letter the FOS legal department sent. Pinnacle are appealing against the claim. I think I understand correctly, that it seems to be about who was actually responsible for the sale of the PPI. The FOS told me that it is now with the head Ombudsman and their legal team. Unfortunately I never hear anything from the FOS unless I ring them, so I ring them monthly for an update. Its been about 22 months now, but the FOS are still fighting so maybe they think that we have a case. I think it will be a long wait still. The fight goes on. Also just waiting for new template letter for new bank charges letter and will be fighting that again as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Still waiting, been with FOS 26 months now! Their legal team are involved now with my claim for PPI with Cardif Pinnacle. It's taking so long but they are still fighting for me, apparently legal process takes a long time. Wondered if anyone else has a claim with Cardif - the FOS tell me there are about 1300 claims. So fed up now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tagel

 

I'll be very interested to see what the outcome of your case is.

 

I also had a PPI case against Pinnacle Insurance for a loan taken out in July 2004. Pinnacle were the Insurance underwriters.

 

Anyway my case has been with the FOS for wellover a year,and on Monday i got a letter from the ajudicator with the FOS.

 

Which says

 

I am sorry to have to tell you we were unable to investigate your complaint about Pinnacle Insurance Plc because the event you have complained about (the sale of Payment Protection Insurance) took place on a date before the sale of insurance policies by this firm became covered by our jurisdiction and the transitional arrangements in place that can extend our jurisdiction in certain circumstances do not help in this instance.

 

Hope you have better luck.

 

When was your loan taken out?

If it was before 2005 like mine, i can't understand why its taking over 2 years to sort?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Garyca my loan was taken out in 2003 with Loans.co.uk. I spoke to the FOS this week and they say that my case is with their solicitors, they are waiting for a response back from Cardif legal team and this is what seems to be taking the time. They tell me because it has gone this far (to the head adjuicator and legal team) it will take time for the two parties to correspond.

 

With regards to your claim, does this mean that is the end of it. When I speak to the FOS they tell me that it may end up going to court if Cardif still disagree. I can't understand why your case has been dismissed by the FOS - unless of course my letter is in the mail, although they still say that I have a case.

 

Tracey

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know i can't understand it myself.

I know Pinnacle were members of the FSA from 2001, but were not members of the GISC.

I will give them a ring this week to clarify.

 

I found this below in regards to the FOS and PPI.

 

 

transitional arrangements for insurance intermediaries

 

In issue 42 of ombudsman news, we noted that our jurisdiction has recently expanded to include insurance intermediaries. This article outlines the insurance intermediary activities that are now covered by the Financial Ombudsman Service. It also explains the arrangements for dealing with relevant transitional complaints – those that concern events that occurred before insurance intermediaries joined our jurisdiction.

firms within our jurisdiction

From 14 January 2005, the following activities became regulated by the Financial Services Authority (and therefore fell within our jurisdiction):

teal-sq.gif

dealing in insurance contracts as agent

teal-sq.gif

arranging deals in insurance contracts

teal-sq.gif

advising on insurance contracts

teal-sq.gif

assisting in the administration and performance of insurance contracts. This means that many firms which carried out such activities and were previously outside our jurisdiction – such as insurance brokers – are now covered by the ombudsman scheme. We also have jurisdiction over firms that have been granted interim permission by the Financial Services Authority to carry out general insurance mediation activities.

There are a few specific exceptions to this extension of our jurisdiction:

teal-sq.gif

travel agencies – when the insurance is sold as part of a package holiday

teal-sq.gif

retailers – when selling extended warranties on some goods, such as refrigerators and televisions

teal-sq.gif

loss adjusters – but not loss assessors who act for customers in relation to insurance claims; and

teal-sq.gif

the handling of insurance claims on behalf of insurers under a delegated authority. retrospective jurisdiction

As well as having jurisdiction over complaints about events occurring on or after 14 January 2005, the Financial Ombudsman Service also has a limited ‘retrospective’ jurisdiction. This covers some complaints about events that occurred before 14 January 2005. The retrospective jurisdiction comes about because of provisions set out in a statutory instrument informally known as The Mortgage & General Insurance Transitional Order. The Order allows us to look at complaints about intermediary activities that occurred before 14 January 2005 if:

teal-sq.gif

the firm was a member of the General Insurance Standards Council at the time of the event complained about

teal-sq.gif

the complaint would previously have been covered by the General Insurance Standards Council Dispute Resolution Facility

teal-sq.gif

the complainant is an individual who is acting otherwise than solely for the purposes of his business; and

teal-sq.gif

the firm became regulated by the Financial Services Authority on or after 14 January 2005. Such complaints are known as relevant transitional complaints. While we will determine them in line with our ‘fair and reasonable’ jurisdiction, we must also take into account what the General Insurance Standards Council might have decided. We will not have jurisdiction over any complaints that the Council was already handling before 14 January 2005. Our usual time limits will apply.

In a future issue of ombudsman news we will include case studies illustrating some of the jurisdiction issues surrounding transitional arrangements for intermediaries. In the meantime the following flow chart should help to clarify which retrospective complaints we are able to look at.

om_43.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Garyca,

 

Let me know how your phone call goes as surely they can't say no to one person and yet carry on the fight for another. Its all very complicated and I don't understand much of it. I do get fed up of ringing them but I never hear anything unless I ring them.

 

I will keep you informed if I hear anything too.

 

Good luck, Tracey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do tagel.

The ajudicator that was on my case is not around at the moment.

 

Reading my letter again i'm even more puzzled.

 

A paragraph i didn't take in at the time.

 

However, i am presently investigating the possibility of raising your concerns with the underwriter of your policy, ie the insurance company who actually provided the cover under the policy. It would be helpful if you could provide us with any information you have on the underwriter of your policy.

 

:confused: Seem to be going backwards here. The FOS have had all my documents and know that it was Pinnacle insurance who were the underwriters, which was my complaint in the first place, over a tear ago.

 

 

When ive spoken to him, i'll hopefully know more and what is happening

Link to post
Share on other sites

Garyca, my original complaint was with Loans.co.uk. The FOS said that this was out of their jurisdiction and therefore said that Cardif Pinnacle were the underwriters and so the claim should be with them. Cardif disagree but the FOS are apparently in discussion with Cardifs legal team. So not sure what will happen but as yet the FOS are still pushing for a refund for me. I hope that you manage to speak to the ajudicator, although when I speak to mine he tells me because it is with the legal team and he has to wait to hear from them - which is the thing that is taking the time. Who was your original loan with - seems if they have got their wires crossed if you have already told them that Cardif are the underwriters. Let me know how it goes and I will keep you posted also.

Tracey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tagel

 

Well finally got through to the adjudicator who was dealing with my complaint, and everything is OK.

 

Apparently the letter was sent by mistake and was out of sync.

He did explain (won't bore you with details).

 

But yes my case is still progressing.

 

He did say that Pinnacle had submitted all the reasons why they shouldn't be responsible and that the head adjudicator was looking into it.

I also got the impression that this could take a very long time.

 

Anyway feel better now, then what i did earlier in the week.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all , I'm watchng this with interest . A friend of mine who is self-employed was sold a PPI for his mortgage by Cardiff (via A&L ) ..... and now that he's in trouble due to the recession , they're playing hard to get .... telling him they won't pay unless he winds his business up ....

 

My contention is that, being self-employed he shouldn't have been sold this in the first place .... therefore it is mis-sold .... he's actually waiting a reply from FOS ... so I'll watch to see which way they jump ..... and when :rolleyes:.........

Nemo me impune lacessit

 

 

Advice & opinions given by johnnymitch are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

 

If you think I've helped you please feel free to tickle my star :-D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 months later...

Received bad news yesterday and I am so angry and upset. FOS have finally given their verdict after nearly three years! and the outcome was that Loans.CO. UK no longer have record of the phone call when I took out the loan and PPI. Therefore they have sided with them and that because I ticked the box (which I say I felt I had to so that I could get the loan) then we agreed to the PPI.

 

The FOS say if I don't agree then I can take it up with the Ombudsman, but I will need to provide further evidence which obviously without transcripts of phone call, I can't. I just cannot believe that it took the FOS nearly 3 years to come to this decision and so many phone calls from myself (I have a list of every phone call made). How can they take their word and not mine, it seems as if they had no intention of helping me.

 

I wonder if anyone has had same experience or an idea if I can do anything else, I am just so upset now. I think the fact it took them nearly 3 years makes it so much worse - it is a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Received bad news yesterday and I am so angry and upset. FOS have finally given their verdict after nearly three years! and the outcome was that Loans.CO. UK no longer have record of the phone call when I took out the loan and PPI. Therefore they have sided with them and that because I ticked the box (which I say I felt I had to so that I could get the loan) then we agreed to the PPI.

 

The FOS say if I don't agree then I can take it up with the Ombudsman, but I will need to provide further evidence which obviously without transcripts of phone call, I can't. I just cannot believe that it took the FOS nearly 3 years to come to this decision and so many phone calls from myself (I have a list of every phone call made). How can they take their word and not mine, it seems as if they had no intention of helping me.

 

I wonder if anyone has had same experience or an idea if I can do anything else, I am just so upset now. I think the fact it took them nearly 3 years makes it so much worse - it is a joke.

 

 

I had the same thing with FOS re Alliance & Leicester but it only took 7 months. They work on the balance of probability which is totally unacceptable and I told them so. I lodged an official complaint against the adjudicator as she had failed to realise the A&L had been fined by the FSA £10m pound in 2008 for the mis-selling of PPI. They have passed this to a PPI expert and the final appeal process.

 

I would get back to them listing all the areas where you think they have failed and tell them you want to appeal immediately.

 

I would also ask why and how they have ruled in LOANS favor given that LOANS are bound legally to keep all recordings for 7 years and failure to do so is a big no no. Is it not conveinent they have lost it??? I do beieve they are also required to keep backups of these recordings as well. As Data Security Officer as few years back I know it was a requirement for the bank I worked for so it shouldn't be any different for them,

 

They just need some help along the way I think as they don't seem to be as clued up as us caggers.

 

Hope that sort of helps and chin up

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco 8-)

"I just want to make people silky-smooth!"

 

Scrapper vs MBNA Partial Settlement Success. Saved £13,000 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc PPI Reclaim Success £5,500 :lol:

Scrapper vs Barclaycard Partial Settlement Success. Saved £6,000 :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Tesco's FOS upheld complaint. Possible court action to get default removed

 

Scrapper vs Egg (Barclaycard) Awaiting FOS

 

Scrapper vs Barclays Bank Plc Offered made & Refused. This means war :-x

Scrapper vs Barclaycard (Cabot) Waiting 4 years for CCA. Cabot advised irresolvable :lol:

 

Scrapper vs Intelligent Finance. Success

 

Scrapper vs Picture (Webb Resolutions) Success

 

 

Beginner's guide

 

Advice & opinions given by Scrapper are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...