A general FOS question regarding missing statements

[citybloke]

Has anyone had any dealings with the FOS for a PPI claim they have that includes a period where an estimate of PPI policy payments was given due to missing statements?

 

For example :-

 

PPI mis-selling claim Mr. X has 2005-2009 statements available but is missing 2002-2004 statements. Does anyone know if a PPI case was upheld by the FOS, would they only inform the bank to refund 2005-2009? or would the FOS use an average PPI payment based on the available statements for the 2002-2004 period?

 

This is just a general question not related to any specific claim, but is a scenario I think many people are going to come up against due to not holding all statements and/or the banks just saying if you've not got the statements to prove what PPI was paid then we're not refunding.

 

My view is that if the bank knows you had PPI from a certain date and you have a decent amount of account history in the statements you do hold, then it is reasonable and fair to use the data you have to calculate an average PPI payment to use for the missing statements period.

 

If anyone has had any dealings with the FOS regarding PPI claims with missing statements, i'm sure we'd all be glad to hear about these cases and the FOS's view.

 

Citybloke

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not seen any myself, and don't know if FOS

has the authority to estimate in this way.

[citizenB]

Agreed, it is a question that is coming up time and time again. I think we need a definitive answer with regard to missing statements.. especially where the Bank is saying they only keep back 6 years. The FOS stance is to return a victim to the position they would have been in had they not had the PPI applied to the accounts. If this cant be done because the Bank doesnt have the information, I can see the consumer being shafted yet again.

[candyapple1]

I spoke to someone at the FOS about two months ago, and asked this, that if we can prove when PPI started, can we estimate using an average based on six years, and was told no. I even asked regarding the bank account statments that the direct debit was coming out of, if that could be used to determine, and again was told no. I think it is totally wrong, and banks are going to hide behind the six year rule, as the difference in what those older years make to the amount owed is incredible.

[ims21]

While fos may have their rules it doesn't stop a claimant suing to get what they want it they wish to go that way.

 

Lots of work and you may not win but it is an option.

 

ims

Edited January 29, 2012 by ims21
Spelling

[citybloke]

While fos may have their rules it doesn't stop a claimant suing to get what they want it they wish to go that way.

 

Lots of work and you may not win but it is an option.

 

ims

 

A lot of the older claims with missing statements will be for higher sums of money to claim back, due to time elapsed. With claims over £5k, it will be difficult to take it to court, as there will be a big risk of costs to pay if the case is lost.

 

Morally they should refund where there is enough account history available to be able to come up with a fair average PPI payment.

 

If a thief broke into a bank and stole a sum of money and was later arrested for the theft, would he be freed with no charge if the bank couldn't prove the exact amount he stole??

[ims21]

I agree

 

I'm simply pointing out the options

 

ims

[ims21]

And don't forget....a bank may well say they do not have statements when in fact they do.

 

Agin this is something that can be chased through court for non-compliance under the DPA if the claimiant wishes to go that route

 

ims

[citybloke]

I agree

 

I'm simply pointing out the options

 

ims

 

If the FOS are taking the approach candyapple1 suggests from his/her phone conversation with them, then I think this is wrong and we have a fair argument to challenge this.

 

I'm going to write to the FOS to get their take on this scenario we're discussing in writing.

[candyapple1]

I totally agree, I think it is criminal that the banks are not honoring payments, when is it is fairly clear that when you took PPI from start of card, and are still paying, or paid up until certain date, then it is your money they are keeping. I also agree with IMS, I do believe banks are witholding information to keep redress offers a lot lower, this actually happened in my case, it is only through persistence and stuborness that I got my statments from microfiche from another department, whilst the same day the PPI department sent the "Full and Final Offer", reiterating they were only able to go back the statuatory six years as that is all the records they had. I have already spoken to the FSA, will be doing an official complaint to the bank, alongside one to the ICO, and dependant on the reply from the bank, may follow on to the FOS. The bank themselves will have to report the complaint to the FSA. If I was not receiving statments, would the bank accept that as my reason for not paying my cerdit card payments??? I rather think not!

[citizenB]

whilst the same day the PPI department sent the "Full and final Offer", reiterating they were only able to go back the statuatory six years as that is all the records they had.

 

This is the argument though isnt it.. WHAT STATUTORY 6 YEARS... Nowhere does the ICO say that they only need keep information for 6 years only. I think what they say is for "as long as is necessary".

 

Money Laundering and Tax laws dictate that information is kept for longer 5/7 years AFTER the financial relationship has ended. With credit card accounts - revolving credit - until the account is fully paid and closed or the Bank assigns the account forward.. the account is still live.

[candyapple1]

I think, or my understanding is, the MINIMUM they need to keep records is six years......as said above, most times they keep longer, but they are using the minimum six years as an excuse when they do not want to provide records. That is what I couldn't understand with my situation, a credit card still active, plus ppi still being paid when we first submitted complaint...and yet they only have six years???? Which, of course, proved not to be the case!

[citybloke]

I phoned the FOS today and explained the scenario of missing statements and the FOS person told me that an adjudicator would decide on a case by case basis as to how the customer should be refunded regarding any periods of missing statements.

 

I spoke to someone at the FOS about two months ago, and asked this, that if we can prove when PPI started, can we estimate using an average based on six years, and was told no. I even asked regarding the bank account statments that the direct debit was coming out of, if that could be used to determine, and again was told no. I think it is totally wrong, and banks are going to hide behind the six year rule, as the difference in what those older years make to the amount owed is incredible.