Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

BBA - v FSA - PPI Judicial Review


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3440 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

Sorry, autolink came up, feel free to edit.

 

Ouch, sorry.. Yes, I am afraid I am going to have to remove that bit :(

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 257
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Full write up from yesterday. There should be another this evening from today. Sorry for delay, needed to check with the writer it was okay to reproduce.

 

I’ll try and summarise, as best I can, the main thrust of the arguments put forward by Lord Pannick for the BBA that Amethyst hasn’t already covered.

 

The BBA is claiming that the principles in the FSA’s policy statement are unfair additions to the ICOB and ICOBS rules that govern the standards of PPI sales.

 

Although they grudgingly accept that principles are in fact rules and therefore capable of being breached, they argue that the principles are too general and abstract to rely on when there is so much money at stake.

 

A crucial aspect of the principles - and this appears to be common ground with the FSA - is that unlike the more specific rules in ICOB & ICOBS, the breaching of principles in themselves don’t give rise to a legal liability to compensation from a firm to a customer. In other words an individual could not seek monetary compensation from a court in respect of a breach of the principles alone.

 

However I believe that this is distinct from the legal liability for breaching principles that firms have with the FSA as the FSA can and has fined firms for breaching principles in isolation.

 

And because the breaching of principles are incapable of giving risen to a legal liability to a consumer, the BBA is claiming that the FOS should not use the principles as one of the criteria they use in determining complaints and that when they do uphold a complaint, because an FOS compensation award is legally binding, this amounts to a legal liability. Lord Pannick said that the only way that the FSA could legitimately use the principles to confer legal liability was to ask Parliament to change the law.

 

In support of their argument that breaching principles was never meant to give rise to liability, Lord Pannick referred to the original legislation laid down by Parliament that gave the FSA it’s rule making powers and which appeared to expressly exclude principles from giving rise to consumer liability, and the judge commented that this was ‘’good evidence’’.

 

The judge then suggested that the FSA & FOS may argue that the principles were only one of the many rules that the FOS take into account when considering the merits of a complaint and as such the principles in themselves may not be responsible for the liability. He also said that notwithstanding the disputed status of the principles, the FOS were principally obliged to judge complaints on the basis of what, in their opinion, is fair and reasonable and that their discretion could be said to override it.

 

The BBA then went on to argue that the FOS were unaware that breaching principles does not cause liability and that the FOS had a duty to fully understand the legal consequences of the rules it used to judge complaints. In support of this Lord Pannick (rather cleverly I thought) dug out some case law from a judgment that Justice Ousley himself had made in 2002 in a case between the Norwich & Peterborough Building Society and the then Ombudsman, where Justice Ousley had stated that an Ombudsman does indeed have a duty to understand the legal consequences of the rules it uses.

 

However, I’m not so sure that the FOS didn’t know this and I wouldn’t be surprised if they came up with some evidence proving they did.

 

The way in which Lord Pannick repeatedly linked the ‘’misuse’’ of the FSA principles to and by the FOS is clearly meant to tie the FOS into the case against the FSA and make it more difficult for the judge to separate the claims against them, and thus circumvent the issue of the case against the FOS being time barred.

 

Almost nothing was said about the ‘common failings’ in the open letter - which was a major part of the BBA’s initial claim. You may remember that the FSA issued a statement on 24 November saying that the BBA had misinterpreted the common failings as breaches of rules (and not merely examples) and it looks like the FSA’s clarification has worked as the BBA have apparently dropped that part of their case.

 

On the issue of the policy statement requiring firms to conduct ‘root cause analysis’ (ie re-examine past PPI sales and offer compensation where due - even to customers who hadn’t complained) the BBA contended that the FSA should have sought legal permission from the Treasury under section 404 of the Enterprise Act to do this and that in not doing so, banks didn’t receive the procedural‘’safeguards’’ that sec 404 offered them.

 

One interesting thing that Pannick said was that if the BBA win the Judicial Review, ‘’what’s done is done’’. I understood this to mean that the BBA didn’t intend to challenge past complaints upheld by the FOS or fines already issued by the FSA in respect of PPI mis-selling by way of breaching principles.

 

When Lord Pannick had finished giving his submission, the judge summed up the BBA’s case:

 

‘’This is an ‘occupied field’ test. Having set out specific and detailed rules, the FSA are precluded from setting out guidance in that field - save by an amendment of the specific rules’’.

 

Looking objectively at the performance of the BBA’s counsel today I’d say that they started off badly but finished better. But really it’s impossible to gauge the strength of their case until we’ve heard the counter arguments from the FSA & FOS tomorrow.

__________________

 

 

(and I remembered to take out the link this time!) It does sound a little complicated, but then the argument is over quite a small point with massive consequences, it is going to all be a little complex.

 

First up today is Lord Flint for the BBA, then the FSA and FOS will get a turn. Starts 10.30am. Get there early if you are going as yesterdays queues were like X Factor (okay not quite but standing room only)....

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also there is this report from the PA http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hkQnOM-smIxoydOZfj5APIl3QTnA?docId=N0340121295917675269A which covers some of the same points.

 

Although I would make one point on the article; at this point of proceedings

He told Mr Justice Ouseley that the FSA estimated that implementation of the proposals could amount to £3.2 billion based on a 20% take-up by those contacted who bought PPI policies since 2005. "If that assumption is an underestimate of the response rate, the costs are going substantially to increase," he said.
The Judge asked if the BBA were able to evidence and back up that their costs would increase - and they had to say No (as it was just words for effect in reality with no substance).
Link to post
Share on other sites
Full write up from yesterday. There should be another this evening from today. Sorry for delay, needed to check with the writer it was okay to reproduce.

 

 

 

(and I remembered to take out the link this time!) It does sound a little complicated, but then the argument is over quite a small point with massive consequences, it is going to all be a little complex.

 

First up today is Lord Flint for the BBA, then the FSA and FOS will get a turn. Starts 10.30am. Get there early if you are going as yesterdays queues were like X Factor (okay not quite but standing room only)....

 

This is really appreciated, manchesteruni. Very generous of Amethyst and I will thank her personally, for allowing you to share.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

The FSA estimates that PPI providers will have to pay out up to £1.3 billion in compensation for new complaints received during the coming five years. Lord Pannick said this could lead to 35 insurance companies failing with the resulting refunds to borrowers falling on the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

 

Hmmm, so are we supposed to feel sorry for these companies that are likely to fail ? If they have been existing on mis sold policies then that is very wrong.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Todays report (sorry its not worded as eloquantly as yesterdays)

 

The BBA's Counsel has been speaking this morning again - the main gist of the argument is that the firms historic procedures will reflect ICOBS, but they wont reflect the principles (ie the guidance) issued by FSA so therefore its unfair to expect them to ....the firms are saying they are shooting at a moving target and the rules have moved over time, since the firms procedures at the time only reflected ICOBS and not the guidance.

 

The firms are being a little out of order IMO in presenting to the Judge that all the firms comply with ICOBS - whereas in our opinion they would fail the test even just on ICOBS, but the firms are sayig that even if they folowed icobs they would still fail the test because of the guidance and moving goalposts.

 

cited 2008 decision ombudsman - against Postit????????? need to look that up unless anyone knows off top of their head ? possibly http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...decision-B.pdf ?

 

online guidance from FOS issued in 2008 - which differs from ICOBS again.

 

pannicks junior expanded occupied field test argument - (from yesterdays report this is '''''

‘’This is an ‘occupied field’ test. Having set out specific and detailed rules, the FSA are precluded from setting out guidance in that field - save by an amendment of the specific rules’’.''''''' ) once a regulator has issued rules in a particular area they are prohibited from giving further guidance within that area except by way of changing the rules..... bba saying fsa should have changed the rules rather than issuing guidance - no response to that yet from fsa/fos.

 

 

The principle is basically that if the regulators fail to act in good time and get the rules right first time its not for them to apply retrospective rules..... (Agree with that)

 

FOS online guidance 2008 adjudicator entitled to take into account anything to ensure fairness - usual argument of FOS not being tied to specific law/rules etc including the FSA guidance.

 

 

BBA finishing after lunch.

 

FINISHED FOR THE DAY

 

BBA talked till 4pm today - essentially same submission - that the FSA, instead of making amendments to the principles, should have conducted an industry wide review sec 403 FSMA - essence moving goalposts creating liability for damages which they would not otherwise be liable for.

 

In last 15 mins the FSA guy stood up - first point is why has FOS been dragged in to it - the FOS is the second stage of a two stage complaints proces - first is to the firm itself, second is to the Fos. The reason the FOS is in it would be absurd to insist the firms didn't have to apply the principles but the fos could. 2008 guidance isnt reallly even guidance but an online resource.

 

FSA pointed out the BBA arguments not very coherent. This is not a challenge to the use of the principles as they have been in use since 2005 and it is not a challenge to guidance issued and not a challenge to the open letter to the industry itself.

The application is a challenge to the lawfulness of the amendments to DISP. Entire case is about statutory construction - ie. do the FSA have the legal powers to make the changes to DISP - without using section 403/404 FSMA (whichever bit it is about consultation)

 

FSA doesnt have any specific powers to make the handbook. They are using their General powers under FSMA and no one has challenged since 2005. Where as FOS have very specific powers under FSMA and manner it goes about making decisions included in schedule 17 to the Act.

 

 

Hopefully there is something useful in that ramble anyway.

 

Is anyone attending tomorrow that can report back ? We will have someone there on Friday, just tomorrow is a bit difficult.

 

 

FSA last thing the error the BBA are making on one very basic principle, the BBA are saying the change to disp creates a cause of action for consumers where none existed under original rules, however that is a mistake to draw an analogy between a cause of action in court on one hand and a complaint by a customer on the other. It is important because 'what is a complaint' (see para 1.1 DISP) ''a written or oral expression of disatisfaction with a financial service product whether that complaint is reasonable or unreasonable...

 

Resolution of the complaint isnt just about financial redress but can be a replacement/change/apology which is a far cry froma cause of action in court.

 

a breach of disp can be the basis of a customer complaint even if it does not give rise to cause action. Also a breach of disp does not create a cause of action in court - FSMA.

 

The reason the FSA bought out the guidances are because 90% being overturned - FOS so trying to alleviate the burden by telling the banks how to deal with the complaints, but the banks concerned that the letter not just dealing with complaints but need to make their own investigations and root cause analysis and make redress even if the customer hasn't complained.

 

 

 

Judge asked about timing FSA finished by end of tmw, FOS should be done midday Friday, banks then sum up - Nemo not sure if they get to speak or not.... end of Friday the judge will give indication if and when might be able to give judgment - case has been expedited so judgement should be.

 

Judge asked what would happen to firms if they didn't follow guidance - the BBA replied they'd just write to them and tell them off (lol) and poss take action under FSMA. A JR is basically '' if I'm going to quash decision it has to make a difference.'' and BBA couldnt really show it would make a difference whether they win or lose this JR lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic thread citizenB...what would we all do without people like you and manchesteruni who has the knowlege where to find all this info and pass it on to everyone on cag, alot of us knew about the court case but I personally couldn't find any details ON THE CASE UNTIL i RECEIVED THE jANUARY nEWSLETTER EMAIL FROM cag, obvisiously i was looking in the wrong places.

However a BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO CONTRIBUTES ON CAG it is greatly appreciated.

 

KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK

Link to post
Share on other sites

UK banks face £5bn payout over new FSA rules on PPIlink3.gif

 

New research by Morgan Stanley has estimated that if the changes go ahead, the UK's top five banks will have to pay out a total of £5.1 billion under a worse case scenario, Reuters reports.

 

Even if under a 'base case' scenario, in which it is assumed that one-fifth of PPI customers make a claim of which half are upheld, banks still face payouts of £2.6 billion.

 

Yes i wondered when the ' costs to the banks argument ' would raise it's ugly head.....

You can see this going one of two ways ,the banks predict doom and gloom oh and the classic ' it won't help the economy putting pressure on the banks ' line therefore PPI case overturned in favour of the banks or banks lose but consumers end up with a watered down version of PPI repayments such as only those with current claims qualify and claims only allowed far back as 2005 to give an example....

Pity the cost to the consumer of missold PPI policies is not mentioned by those banks...

The FSA recently promised to "vigorously contest" the BBA's judicial review.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you recall that argument did appear to work to swing some sympathy the banks way during the bank charges test case.

 

Yes, and it worries my that Justice Ousley will be swayed this time round as well !

 

Hi is there any update we did not go yesterday and not going today?

 

It is my understanding that there will be someone there this afternoon.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Todays report (sorry its not worded as eloquantly as yesterdays)

 

 

 

 

[/color][/left]

 

 

Hopefully there is something useful in that ramble anyway.

 

Is anyone attending tomorrow that can report back ? We will have someone there on Friday, just tomorrow is a bit difficult.

 

 

Many thanks for writing this up. one v interesting point is when the Judge was asking if his decision (for the BBA) would make any difference and they did not seem to think it would! So why bring the JR, is it so they can just go back to pre the FSA policy statement and therefore they dont have to write to consumers but will uphold your complaint if you write in yourself?

 

All very odd, do you think?:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a brief report on Thursday and Fridays hearing events covering the FSA and FOS arguments, but not by the same two people as previous days so I am unable to post it here, frustratingly the link won't work either so you might need some google skills - "Are principles actually rules or not etc" or "linked ICOB /(s) 2 and Principle 7 at this point " should bring it up at the top of Google. It expands on the point you picked up on which seems to be a running theme. There isn't a massive amount of information available and no one appears to have ordered transcripts of the hearings so far - however judgment is expected in the next two weeks. I do think this is more about the FSA powers than PPI in particular.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent thread Citizen B. Only found it via newsletter - obviously hadn't dug enough. I see the banks are pleading the old poverty line again. Unfortunately I suspect they'll get away with it again. It's the way things are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excellent thread Citizen B. Only found it via newsletter - obviously hadn't dug enough. I see the banks are pleading the old poverty line again. Unfortunately I suspect they'll get away with it again. It's the way things are.

 

 

Hi guys,

 

My PPI complaint with Egg was upheld (as confirmed in a letter yesterday) however the letter also stated they are unable to calculate a refund for me until the outcome of the judicial review case.

 

If, at the end of the case, the banks were not forced to pay out any further payments in relation to PPI, would this mean I would get nothing. Or would it be a case that because they have agreed to uphold my complaint that I will get a repayment?

 

Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. I am also disappointed that the decision over the case could go on and on, causing an extra delay to the incorrectly charged consumer!

 

Thanks 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi guys,

 

My PPI complaint with Egg was upheld (as confirmed in a letter yesterday) however the letter also stated they are unable to calculate a refund for me until the outcome of the judicial review case.

 

If, at the end of the case, the banks were not forced to pay out any further payments in relation to PPI, would this mean I would get nothing. Or would it be a case that because they have agreed to uphold my complaint that I will get a repayment?

 

Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated. I am also disappointed that the decision over the case could go on and on, causing an extra delay to the incorrectly charged consumer!

 

Thanks 8-)

 

It might be a good idea for you to start a thread in the PPI forums and ask this question :)

 

TBH, I dont know the answer, but others on teh PPI forums might be able to help.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

FOS are advising that due to the Challenge by the Banks, it could take up to a year before claims are resolved.

 

 

th_FOSNathanHorner-15March2011-1.jpg

 

 

th_FOSNathanHorner-15March2011-2.jpg

Edited by citizenB

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb 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.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I am new here this is my first post, I have written to the bank (Natwest) claiming for the mis-sold of my PPI this was done on march 1st, I am hoping i won't have to wait a year for a decision or a full refund :-(. I did receive a letter stating that will write again in 4 weeks and if they have not made a decision by then. They will write again at the 8 week mark.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too complained to NatWest, or RBS who deal with their insurance, last October. I received the same letter as you suggesting the 4 week and 8 week points. It is now March almost 5 months later and i have heard absolutely nothing, despite several follow up letters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi I am new here this is my first post, I have written to the bank (Natwest) claiming for the mis-sold of my PPI this was done on march 1st, I am hoping i won't have to wait a year for a decision or a full refund :-(. I did receive a letter stating that will write again in 4 weeks and if they have not made a decision by then. They will write again at the 8 week mark.

 

 

Depending on how much PPI is being claimed and at the discretion of Natwest you may get the standard ' blah blah letter we are awaiting the outcome of the Judicial review...

Halifax have just compensated me £1300 in Feb an old loan five years ago. I submitted a request in Dec no questions asked then again I bank with Halifax and have a large balance with them so there customer service is suprisingly outstanding in that respect.Also got £250 refunded in charges on a old loan this month.

The most important thing to do is watch your timescales if Natwest refuse to refund then letter to FOS after the eight week timescale don't hang around for Natwest...

I have two on hold with FOS who to be fair know the banks that I am requesting from are awaiting the Judical review but they are still investigating so keep on at them

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...