Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hospital car parks are no place to employ sharks, at least in Wales Hospital parking is free, and PPCs verboten.
    • Update:   A couple of weeks further along, and the charge has now been cancelled. In that regard alone the outcome is acceptable.   In the interim ...  There have been additional demands from CPP/PE in the most glorious and laughable obfuscated prose/legalese I have pressured PALS I have chased past correspondence I have contacted other Execs I have involved my MP who has now acted I had primed the local newspaper who was planning a piece this week   However ...   - PALS didn't respond until I complained in person after almost 2 silent weeks; then promised to help and a couple of days after that advised that the Hosp had said thye had no authority over the Parking Co. I told them the hosp had told them wrong, explained why and pressed them to go back ... since when I have heard nothing despite chasing them. - UHCW Trust Estates & Facilities Dir. is yet to respond, though contact was *only* a week ago. - UHCW CEO/Chief Administrator has never acknowledged/replied-to any of my letters/chases. - UHCW CEO/Chief Admin reacted immediately to MP letter however by passing it and my correspondence to Estates and Facilities Dir to deal with, who in turn replied to MP with cancellation, who yesterday copied that to me for confirmation received this morning.   Passing thoughts ...   - People who could/should have been dealing with it for the injured party elected not to. - PALS has good intentions but is useless if they don't have a leaflet on it - will follow the Hosp line on everything else without questioning their words. - The Trust's Administration is not approach-friendly, in this instance stating "... car parking managed by a Private Finance Initiative Service Provider"  and that therefore  ".. Trust has no power ...  in the processes applied by CPP .." Oh, really?!  - Trust accepted CPP's word that the equip't was not faulty as claimed, not the rather more reliable word of a visitor having been put to considerable inconvenience at 5 a.m.and who went to some length with staff to deal with it instead of buggering off home. - CPP "have agreed (to cancel) as a gesture of good will." WHAT?! THEIR good will? THEY are willing to let MY failings pass and kindly make allowances? Couldn't be more self-delusionarily wrong!   Sadly, I can guarantee that what is actually important in all of this will not get any attention   - providing an alternative payment method for patients/visitors for when the equipment malfunctions ... at any time not just the wee-hours ...  and tell staff ...  and put notices up. - UHCW taking any notice of their culpability in CPP's unlawful breaching of GDPR in accessing keeper details now that it has been brought to their attention. Head In Sand.       All of this comes of course from pulling-up the drawbridge and deny, deny, deny. It is the knee-jerk response of almost all large organisations, but one for which there should be no place in a Hospital Trust that should strongly want to distance itself from uncaring attitudes and irresponsible practises.   Anyway ...   Anyone finding this because of a similar issue of their own, my strongest advice is to heed the advice given to you on this forum - it put me straight on to the right path and got rid of some nervous uncertainties which makes all the difference to peace of mind, something that CPP relies on to add pressure for those who aren't aware of what's what.   My thanks again to all who kindly helped.            
    • At the investigation yes, they are seeing if they can build a case.   Like the police interview you before deciding if you are going to be charged. Not everyone is charged as some people have done nothing wrong!   If you tell people what the investigation is about before they go in, a proportion will use that knowledge to prepare really good lies. That's why companies don't do it.   I would have a read up on the ACAS site of guidelines for both investigations and disciplinaries.    https://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1874
    • So they've back-tracked on their original statement that his insurance has been voided. If it's not been voided and was in force at the time of the accident there is no role for MIB. MIB gets involved if a driver was uninsured at the time of the accident, but 1st Central are now telling you he was insured. In the response you have had from MIB that is what they say, he was not uninsured. Whoever it was who told you that the policy had been voided was, by the sound of it, telling you something that simply wasn't true.   I've never heard of 1st Central but from their website it's clear they are an insurance broker not the actual insurance company https://www.1stcentralinsurance.com/who-we-are  As a broker they are acting for their client, the driver, and have no duty to be impartial in considering whose fault it was.   So looks like you have no option now other than to start a small claims court action against the driver.
    • Pass all of these letters to mib when you start the claim. Eventually they will have to pay up.
  • Our picks

goaliesmum

GE Money Store card - Santander PPI Redress via Axa ex-Financial Insurance Group - is this redress correct

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Good morning

 

My claim for misselling on a Dorothy Perkins card taken out in store in 1997 has been upheld by FOS.

 

I have had an offer from Santander and unsure if I should accept or question the calculation.

 

They have stated they have full account details from 2005, prior to that they have details of PPI payments and my spending history.

 

They have reconstructed the account with this info but ask if I have any other statements, in line with FOS rules.

 

I do have some earlier statements and in particular in 2002/3 I had a loan and paid off the account but then used again in a small way from 2004.

 

If they have assumed minimum payments throughout the calculation with no clearing of the balance what effect might this have on the end result, good/bad?.

 

I don't see how they can work out when the account went into credit if they do not have payment history, or does spending history include payment details.

 

Sorry if I'm asking something unanswerable but hoped someone may know. After a 10 year wait and finally getting here I am loathe to accept without checking if possible

 

Many thanks for any help

Edited by goaliesmum
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whilst the card is in debit you get that months PPI payment back at their int rate compounded till they stopped their int

if the card goes into credit, you get 8% statutory interest until they settle.

 

have YOU got all the statements and info they have via an SAR before you started the claim?

if not you don't stand a chance in hell of calculating if they are correct without them.

 

see my sig below


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.  I've got more info and statements pre 2005 from SAR in 2009  but they were unable back then to provide further back than 2003 and incomplete, some dates missing. 


I do have the statement from 2003 showing the NIL balance and need to check the loft but you are right not ALL back to 1997.

 

I was wondering what impact a NIL statement for a year or 2 made compared to them making assumptions there was a small running balance throughout.

 

Thank again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the small bal includes ppi it will

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok thanks   When I paid the balance off the account is in credit sooner, much longer and for a larger amount with the ppi payments and associated interest removed. So would think more stat interest would be due.

 

I'll bite the bullet and give them a call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you need to read the guide either here below or on the FOS website upon how redress is calculated to understand what you should get back properly.

 

ill explain it briefly later if I have the time.

pers i'd never ring a creditor as it only leads to further confusion

writing only.

 

im actually quite surprised they are even entertaining the refund

as 99% of these cards were EX GE Money cards, and they never refund and your have to go after the underwriters..interesting.

 


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks dx100uk.

I have read through and will do so again.

 

It is the issue of being in credit and whether it is worth letting them know I have paperwork to back it up.

 

Would their reconstruction of the account get to a credit balance lower, meaning less stat interest added if they have assumed minimum payment and aren’t aware it was paid off in full and nil for a while.

 

Though I suppose the fact there were no ppi premiums would tell them that.

 

So probably just accept it’s correct as the breakdown shows they have followed fos guidelines for redress. 

 

To be clear Santander are handling the claim but redress is being made by Axa who I believe took over Financial Insurance Group

 

thanks again for your time 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the info they have results in more 8% than should be, then pers i'd give them the info

As if you paid and they now knew that

the compound int would be a far greater sum for that period

 

Nice work on FIG now Axa 

Thats will be useful to other GE Money store card reclaimers.

Many are stalled here not finding out the info


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

please do not post jpg images directly to a topic..USE PDF ....READ UPLOAD.

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...