Entitlement to payment for services

[Lynnzer]

Around 2 years ago, I made a PPI claim against Barclays for my son.

The claim was rejected.

I can't remember if the appeal period had timed out or whether I appealed

but the claim was never paid anyway.

In any case the claim is well timed out being at least 18 months from the start of claim and the rejection of it.

 

My son was contacted by a PPI claims handling company earlier this year and

he gave them the go-ahead to go to Barclays for taking on any mis-selling on loans and credit cards he may have had.

My understanding of this sort of exercise is that they make a generic request for details of all past loans and credit card details for assessing whether PPI is on them.

 

It so happened that during the course of the ongoing (we presume) proceedings by the PPI company,

that my son received an amount directly into his bank by Barclays.

 

 

A couple of days later he received a letter from them explaining the amount.

The gist of it says that although the original claim had been refused,

as a result of a review of his case they have found that indeed he had been mis-sold PPI

and gave calculations for the amount he received.

 

This is the rub.

It was myself who made the original claim.

The appeal was either timed out, (most probably) or appealed and refused again. In any event the appeal period was long past.

 

Am I right in thinking that the PPI claims company have played no part in resurrecting this claim?

I have had reviews of past claims carried out on ones I did for myself which have resulted in either a claim being agreed,

or where it had already been agreed and paid, it had resulted in a further amount being paid.

At no time had I requested a review of any of these cases.

 

I think that such a review is a procedural one which cannot be as a result of any claims handling company's intervention.

In that case there ought to be no payment made to them as they have not had any effect on what was entirely a procedural review of the case.

 

In a nutshell. Would Barclays have carried out a review of the refused claim without any input from the PPI company?

 

Would they have carried it out as a direct result of the new enquiry from the PPI company even after the appeal period had timed out?

 

Would Barclays have carried out the review after it had timed out due to the new enquiry from the PPI company?

 

Is the PPI company entitled to their fee if they didn't have any direct persuasion on Barclays to carry out the review?

 

Since it was myself who initiated the claim 2 years ago, does the PPI company have any merit in claiming they have carried out the necessary work?

 

The PPI company is now after their slice of the cake so I need to know asap or my son will just pay up anyway.

[BankFodder]

You need to find out whether the payment of PPI refund had anything to do with any action taken by the claims company.

 

In order to do this I would suggest that you send the bank an SAR

 

In the meantime right to claim company and say that you're looking into their claim and that you will revert to them shortly.

 

It sounds to me as if your son is a bit out of control and I would suggest that you take away his Xbox and stop his pocket money

[Hortz]

Around 2 years ago, I made a PPI claim against Barclays for my son.

The claim was rejected. I can't remember if the appeal period had timed out or whether I appealed but the claim was never paid anyway. In any case the claim is well timed out being at least 18 months from the start of claim and the rejection of it.

 

My son was contacted by a PPI claims handling company earlier this year and he gave them the go-ahead to go to Barclays for taking on any mis-selling on loans and credit cards he may have had. My understanding of this sort of exercise is that they make a generic request for details of all past loans and credit card details for assessing whether PPI is on them.

 

True, it is basically a fishing exercise.

 

It so happened that during the course of the ongoing (we presume) proceedings by the PPI company, that my son received an amount directly into his bank by Barclays. A couple of days later he received a letter from them explaining the amount.

The gist of it says that although the original claim had been refused, as a result of a review of his case they have found that indeed he had been mis-sold PPI and gave calculations for the amount he received.

 

Sounds reasonable, a number of banks are currently undertaking cold case reviews as a result of changes in policy, errors being identified, FCA audits or FOS decisions.

 

This is the rub. It was myself who made the original claim. The appeal was either timed out, (most probably) or appealed and refused again. In any event the appeal period was long past.

 

Am I right in thinking that the PPI claims company have played no part in resurrecting this claim? I have had reviews of past claims carried out on ones I did for myself which have resulted in either a claim being agreed, or where it had already been agreed and paid, it had resulted in a further amount being paid. At no time had I requested a review of any of these cases.

 

See above

 

I think that such a review is a procedural one which cannot be as a result of any claims handling company's intervention. In that case there ought to be no payment made to them as they have not had any effect on what was entirely a procedural review of the case.

 

In a nutshell. Would Barclays have carried out a review of the refused claim without any input from the PPI company?

 

Probably

 

Would they have carried it out as a direct result of the new enquiry from the PPI company even after the appeal period had timed out?

 

Would Barclays have carried out the review after it had timed out due to the new enquiry from the PPI company?

 

Very doubtful, if they had no reason to doubt the original decision they'd have just told them to naff off.

 

Is the PPI company entitled to their fee if they didn't have any direct persuasion on Barclays to carry out the review?

 

No, but you need to get it in writing from Barclays that it was a proactive cold case review on their part with no part played by the CMC.

 

Since it was myself who initiated the claim 2 years ago, does the PPI company have any merit in claiming they have carried out the necessary work?

 

The PPI company is now after their slice of the cake so I need to know asap or my son will just pay up anyway.

 

Depends whether they actually have carried out any necessary work or not. As per the above I strongly suspect not and if that's the case then I for one don't think he should be paying them anything.

 

It sounds to me as if your son is a bit out of control and I would suggest that you take away his Xbox and stop his pocket money

 

This might be the best idea!!!

[Lynnzer]

I have the letter from Barclays in front of me now.

It says:

Dear Mr ******

Your Payment Protection Insurance claim number ******

We wrote to you on 8th August 2012 and advised you that we were unable to agree that we mis-sold you PPI.

 

As part of our ongoing commitment to serve our customers we conduct additional reviews into the claims we investigative.

 

I have found that we mis-sold you PPI and should have upheld your claim. I am sorry that we did not make the right decision the first time and for any inconvenience this has caused you.

 

The letter you should have originally received is enclosed. This letter contains important information.

 

If you were originally represented by a claims handling company or any third party you will need to settle any fees or charges with them directly. A copy of this letter will be sent to them.

_____________________________________________________

 

Now, it was myself who made the original claim. The Claims company has received a copy of the letter though as they have already contacted my son about payment.

 

The Barclay's statement of "if you were originally represented by a claims handling company". Well, he wasn't.

Would that be persuasive?

 

I could do a SAR but it takes time and I would rather kill this quickly.

 

I am of the opinion that any refusal to pay would result in court action. I would guess they are well on top these sort of situations of non payment so need to pretty certain of the situation.

[dx100uk]

IMHO the claims company are trying it on here.

 

 

nothing unusual there!!

 

 

dx

[dx100uk]

how did the CMC findout about the latter payment?

 

 

dx

[Lynnzer]

how did the CMC findout about the latter payment?

 

 

dx

 

I guess they were copied in by the bank. Could be they were just showing as the last contact company.