Priestly Crowe and Blue Sky PPI reclaiming - can we do it ourselves rather than pay a fee to them?

[dx100uk]

SAR them

 

 

dx

[Paddywack41]

SAR them

 

 

dx

 

 

Good idea dx never thought about that. Will start the process tonight.

[Paddywack41]

Good idea dx...never thought about that. I will start the process tonight.

[Paddywack41]

He is an interesting little addition and one that applies to another thread involving Priestley Crowe (I will post it there also just to add to the information).

 

 

Today a letter was received from Priestley Crowe addressed to my Partners ex husband at her current address. As she pays all the bills now that he has run off she opened it and low and behold it was a letter from Priestley Crowe saying that they had been appointed by the liquidators Findlay James to act on behalf of Blue Sky Personal Finance that had gone into liquidation in 2014. They said he was owed money and to fill in the application form provided.

 

 

Now in the other thread the discussion regarding both Findlay James and Priestley Crowe revolved around GE Finance which just so happens to be one of the creditors on my partners list. So looks like they are attempting to claim twice of the same party for the same PPI.

 

 

Anyhow I contact Findlay James to ask them if Priestley Crowe had been appointed by them and also to ask if this was the case why are they passing these details on to a company that charges a fee for something that can be done for free. There response by email was....

 

 

" We have forwarded it to a company we feel would do their best for the clients, as we don't currently have the resources to deal with all the queries. If you wish to make a claim with another company or do it yourself, you are well to do so, you do not have to use the Priestley Crowe if you don't want to. "

 

 

Not particularly happy with this response I replied to them as follows:

 

 

"Thank you for your prompt reply (below). Whilst I appreciate that you have confirmed that you have forwarded my details to another company, I would like to you to clarify some points:

 

1. Are Priestley Crowe officially appointed by Findlay James?

 

2. Bearing in mind I had made no claim to Blue Sky Personal Finance with regards to PPI, why was my information passed to a third party without my consent?"

 

 

There response to the 2nd email....

 

 

"I confirm that Priestley Crowe LLP (“PC”) have been appointed agents of the Liquidator pursuant to Paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 of the Insolvency Act 1986 to assist in quantifying and helping to agree all claims against the Company. As such, no consent was required from you"

 

 

I know very little about liquidated companies etc but my limited knowledge would suggest that a company liquidated in 2014 would have little in the way of assets to claim from therefore Findlay James are forwarding details to Priestley Crowe who are getting people to claim knowing there will be little to be awarded but Priestley Crowe are likely to charge full amounts for claiming this little back and potentially putting people in debt.

 

 

I am also concerned that information is being passed to Priestley Crowe without any checks...this PPI information passed to Priestley Crowe was done with no initial claim being made agains Blue Sky.

[dx100uk]

go speak to the FOS on the phone

 

this should not be happening

 

god spot there.

 

tell them what is going on.

 

will help the other members here too.

 

dx

[Paddywack41]

Im out and about today but will get that done tomorrow and will post their response dx.

[marklee8489]

Hi i am so glad that i decided to google Priestley Crowe before filling in the form i received.

 

Just before i went on holiday

i received a letter from Priestly Crowe stating that they had been appointed on behalf of the liquidator for Blue Sky.

 

 

I did have a loan with blue sky so at first i was just going to fill it in and see what happened

but in the first line it mentions a previous conversation.

 

 

Whilst i have probably been contacted by them before i deal with all PPI calls in the same way,

either hang up or tell them that i have already reclaimed everything.

 

My only question now would be is there any point in trying to claim from Blue Sky by myself?

[dx100uk]

yes and start a new thread

of you own.

 

 

dx

[Paddywack41]

After my last posting I started to receive conflicting reports on how best to proceed bearing in mind what had gone on before.

 

 

I managed to speak to one of the Senior Partners at Priestley and to be fair we had a fairly frank but corrteous and fruitfull discussion to bring this to an amicable end.

 

 

To that end it was agreed that my partner would allow Priestley Crowe to look after the claims for some of the ones which may potentially be outstanding whilst my Partner and myself would look after some others that we had been notified of separately.

 

 

Whilst I still feel it is the wrong way to do this I don't feel I can allow these claim to carry on in the current manner and Priestly Crowe to be fair have compromised and given some assurances on the outcome of the claims. Proof is in the pudding and if Priestley Crowe come through with the agreed settlement I will be happy to come back and let you know the results.

[dx100uk]

still don't like the idea that a company that charges fees to reclaim PPI

is the only proported route to getting PPI back on blue sky stuff

if people know no better

 

 

im sure the FOS would be very interested in this.

 

 

dx

[mightymouse_69]

still don't like the idea that a company that charges fees to reclaim PPI

is the only proported route to getting PPI back on blue sky stuff

if people know no better

 

 

im sure the FOS would be very interested in this.

 

 

dx

 

The Legal Ombudsman and MOJ would be more interested.

 

CMC's are regulated by them - not the FCA, which means FOS has no jurisdiction.

[dx100uk]

Wasn't talking about regulation specifically

But mores the fact that as it reads

People that have PPI on a blue sky product

Appear to only be able to get PPI back by this one route

 

That's not right and the fos need to be told

 

If they then comment its for the moj then fine

But I feel they would like to know and p'haps comment

 

Dx