Jump to content


Aviva ignored signs of financial abuse by sibling and supported by FOS


Recommended Posts

Best to keep this kind of analysis running as you go along. Much easier keeping it up-to-date then having to go back to all of the data and do it at one go.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 364
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

@BankFodder yes I did I sent it separate I spike to the officer yesterday too she said she was going to speak to the economic commissioner and shes going through all the evidence and once her sergeant

Given delays in responding to the SAR,  maybe suggest to the FOS that they need to set a new date to reject the decision.  Perhaps they should add 3 weeks.

Posted Images

@BankFodder I've received this letter through the post im a bit confused by the date they quoted I sent an email to aviva re the data protection yesterday and I've received this response so a bit perplexed part of me is thinking should put my case forward now as to how aviva have acted as now I've got someone whose taking this all seriously  any thoughts please ?

Adobe Scan 08 May 2021.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologise if I've missed it in the previous eight pages, but did you send a letter of complaint to Aviva on 09 April?

 

I'm a bit confused because I had presumed that because this had all been investigated by the Ombudsman and they had produced a final report, that you must already have exhausted the formal complaints avenue with Aviva, and that they would investigate it no further, leaving you only the Ombudsman to resort to.

 

I think I must be missing something but I don't know what... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman in exile the ombudsman was dealing with the complaint ive not rejected decision yet as ive got an extension I sent a SAR on the 23rd April along with disclosure of the abuse policies they sent me a letter 5th May asking me to verify my identity on the 7th May ive emailed them on the lines of theyre creating obstacles when they have all my information and threatening legal action if I don't get the information in the 30day period  and today I've received this letter in the post 

Part of me is thinking I should email the person asking what complaint is she referring to and maybe put my case forward as now the CEO is involved 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ah - I see you only came here on 20 April - it seems longer ago!  That letter from Aviva reads as if they do not realise you have already complained to the Ombudsman and that you have already received a decision from the Ombudsman(?).  Was the complaint you made on 09 April the same one the Ombudsman investigated or a different one?  I'm not sure how it got to the Ombudsman if Aviva were still dealing with it?  I'm still confused.

 

I'd be inclined to engage with that letter as there may still be a glimmer of hope that they will see sense.  If their CEO really wants to be kept abreast of this, I can't believe she'd be happy with the decisions Aviva have made here.  But see what BabkFodder advises...

 

If Aviva backtrack on this it gives you more ammo for a complaint against the FOS decision - and if I were you I would complain.

 

EDIT:  We've cross-posted

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman in exile ik just as confused ive had no dealings with aviva since ombudsman has been dealing with ive only started sending SARs from 23rd April after I joined the group 

No idea what this relates to but I feel it would be a good time to put my defence forward and for someone to actually look at this case seen as its gone to very high senior management level as the CEO is involved 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Titchytitch said:

@Manxman in exile the ombudsman was dealing with the complaint ive not rejected decision yet as ive got an extension I sent a SAR on the 23rd April along with disclosure of the abuse policies they sent me a letter 5th May asking me to verify my identity on the 7th May ive emailed them on the lines of theyre creating obstacles when they have all my information and threatening legal action if I don't get the information in the 30day period  and today I've received this letter in the post 

Part of me is thinking I should email the person asking what complaint is she referring to and maybe put my case forward as now the CEO is involved 

 

I understand all that - but why are Aviva writing to you now about your complaint dated 09 April?  What did you send them on 09 April - what complaint did you make?  The Ombudsman only deals with complaints after the complaints procedure with Aviva is exhausted.  That letter suggests Aviva had not finished dealing with your complaint.  

 

That letter has nothing to do with your SAR requests.

 

As I posted above, I'd be inclined to engage with them and see if they can treat you properly this time.  But if I were you I'd wait to see what BF advises.

 

EDIT:  Cross-posted again.  So you have no idea what complaint dated 09 April they are talking about?

Edited by Manxman in exile
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

Dear Data Protection Team, dear Amanda Blanc, dear Mary Temple,

Thank you for your message dated 8 May which apparently is intended to respond to my letter of 9 April In which quite frankly sounds like a load of flannel.

I've no idea who Amanda Blanc is and I've no idea who Mary Temple is either.

It's encouraging to note that Amanda apparently takes a personal interest in all matters – because nobody else Aviva has done so far.

I don't really know what you are referring to – but I will remind you that you have received a statutory Subject Access Request dated XXX and although you have responded acknowledging it, you have also gone on to ask for verification of my identity.
Of course you are entitled to do this if it is necessary – and in order to save an argument, I have supplied you with the information you want.
However, you had better tell Mary and Amanda that the request for identity verification is unlawful in the circumstances because you already have ample information as to my identity because you have been very happy to send me demands, threats, refer to me in correspondence with the financial ombudsman service and so forth.

Clearly your demand for identity verification is unnecessary – and as I have already said it is obstructive and unlawful.

I'm pointing out to you once again though, that even though you have requested identity verification the Data Protection Act makes it clear that you are not entitled to use this as a delaying tactic and so the clock is still running and your 30 days expires on XXX date by which time I would have expected to receive full disclosure.

If Amanda wants to demonstrate her personal interest, then she can look through the file and start to understand what has happened here and the fact that Aviva has become the victim of a fraud which was perpetuated by a man who at the time you thought was my husband despite his different name, different address, and being unwilling to let you speak to me.

 

Furthermore, the man who represented himself as my husband took out an insurance policy with you for the purpose of "fronting".  If you aren't sure what "fronting" is, then you should seek clarification from someone in your office with experience.
I'm quite certain that if there had been an accident and he had begun a claim, you would soon have gone to greater trouble then you did when you set up the policy in order to find a way to deny any loss and you would have soon discovered that the policy was taken out fraudulently and also for fraudulent "fronting" purposes and you wouldn't then have hesitated to cancel the cover and withhold any compensation to anyone.

You may be interested to know that the man who represented himself as my husband went on to attempt to commit frauds on at least 10 other companies – most of them in an attempt to obtain loans.
Those companies exercised greater diligence then you did with the result that they declined his loan applications and in fact marked the applications as fraudulent. They did not become victims.

Not only were there all the signs in place that the man who claimed to be my husband was perpetrating a fraud upon you, all the signs were also in place that this was an example of domestic financial abuse.

I have looked at your website and I see that you make a song and dance about being able to spot the signs of financial abuse and you also claim that your staff are trained.  You also make a feature of the fact that you have associated yourself with the abuse organisation "Surviving Economic Abuse".

Clearly this is nothing more than a piece of marketing in order to present yourselves as "woke".

I suppose that you will say that the fraud committed by the man claiming to be my husband occurred before you had implemented any abuse policies or any training. That may well be the case – but certainly any policies and training were definitely implemented by the time that the matter came to light and you started to pursue me for a debt which was not mine.

The truth is that it is Aviva which is the victim of fraud. However, you have decided to pursue me in order to cut your losses and because you see me as the weakest link. Buck-passing.

Bravo.

If Amanda really takes a personal interest in this and if Mary Temple really is going to do something about this then I suggest the following:

  • First, you contact the financial ombudsman whose final decision has not yet been confirmed – and tell the ombudsman that you no longer want to participate in the process and that there is no need for a final decision either way.
  • Second, you should undo all of the damage that you have caused to me in terms of credit files CIFAS marker's and so forth.
  • Third, you should alter all your records to show that I am not in debt to you – but in fact that you are the victim of fraud by a man who claimed to be my husband and whom you helped to set up a fraudulent policy.
  • Fourth, you should inform the police that you are a victim of fraud.
  • Fifth, you can take steps to give me full disclosure of my personal data as requested on XXX date – without any mucking around and without the need for me to escalate this into a serious conflict.
  • Sixth, you can confirm to me whether or not you disclosed your abuse policies to the ombudsman as part of the evidence you sent them.
  • Seventh, you can disclose to me the abuse policies that you have put in place and you can give me details of the abuse training which you apparently apply to all your staff.


I can provide you with the full name and contact details of the man who pretended to be my husband – and in fact is my brother.
You may like to know that the police are fully aware of my brother's activities including his involvement with Aviva in order to obtain a fraudulent insurance policy. The police are fully aware of all the communications which you apparently sent to me – most of which I believe went into a portal to which you prevented me having any access.

Although the police are fully aware of all of the facts, they do not consider that I am a person of interest in their investigation and this runs counter to what the financial ombudsman has apparently decided although if you look closely at the wording of the prospective decision, you will find that the Financial Ombudsman Is merely speculating.

 

I'm not holding my breath in respect of any of this. I don't believe you have the courage – but I do hope that you will satisfy my subject access request without forcing me to litigate the matter.
 

Finally, I would remind you that you have duties under the FCA sourcebook to treat your customers fairly and to communicate with them fairly. These are statutory duties and may also be subject to litigation by an aggrieved individual.

Yours

 

CC - Financial Ombudsman Service

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman in exile ive made no complaint to aviva I referred it to the ombudsman last march 2020 and its been with them ever since as I wasn't getting anywhere with aviva they had sent me their resolution letter back in Feb last year since then an investigator has been looking at it and then the ombudsman

I feel their maybe a glimmer of hope and I also feel maybe you guys can help me put a letter together to send to the ceo directly 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is that posted by BF which appears to be from you (???) and in which you refer to "my letter of 9 April"?

 

(Apologies if I've simply added confusion to this by missing earlier correspondence!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

@BankFodder wow!!! I think you're just as confused as me but I'm blown away with your response!! I think I should email this on the email address I've got ?

Part of me is thinking could Mr Z have put in a dummy complaint ? As I haven't got this far with them despite attempts since Jan 2020 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, send it to that email – also see if you can find the email addresses of this Amanda person and also this Mary Temple person and send it to them as well.

The letter is a bit of a rant – but who cares. Somebody might read it and feel sufficiently insulted that they want to have a look at what's going on. If they don't – then who cares.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah - OK!  There was no explanation in #207 who that message was from - I thought BF was referencing something you had previously sent to Aviva.

 

I still don't understand why Aviva are still corresponding with you about a complaint where the Ombudsman has already made a final report?

 

They are obviously even more incompetent than your experiences already tend to suggest.

 

(I think something has gone seriously wrong here at Aviva and/or the FOS.  I can't believe Aviva even contemplated pursuing you in relation to the alleged debt, and I'm even more incredulous that the FOS did not uphold your complaint.  I think you'll end up making more complaints to both of them!)

 

Could I perhaps suggest tweaking the proposed response to Aviva?

 

What Aviva have sent to the OP today is clearly not connected to any SAR that has been made.  So rather than having several opening paragraphs referring to the SARs and their obligation to respond to them, might it be better for the main part of the proposed response to start with the para that begins: "If Amanda wants to demonstrate her personal interest etc etc... " and continue from there?

 

By all means mention the SARs at the end of the response, but by beginning with them rather than beginning with the substantive complaint (which is why did they let Z take out insurance in the first place and why are they now pursuing the OP) I'd be concerned that the response is detracting from the fundamental matter the OP wants addressing (which is not a response to any SAR).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the starting point is that Aviva have no idea what they're doing. They can't tell their arse from their elbow.

I don't see anything wrong with constantly reminding them of the fact that they have an SAR to deal with and that so far they have demonstrated unlawful and unobstructed behaviour.

The more that it is said to them – the more unfair their behaviour will be if they don't deal with it.

I think the letter that has been sent by Aviva is poly just a standard piece of rubbish. The fact that they are treating it as a formal complaint and requiring eight weeks to deal with it shows that it is simply an procedure and has nothing to do with any personal interest or attention whatsoever.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we can agree to differ.

 

My concern is only that the letter to the OP from Aviva has clearly been sent without knowledge of any SARs made and appears to be suggesting that the CEO wants to take an interest (Ha!) in whatever substantive complaint they think the OP sent them on 9 April.

 

I would not want to encourage Aviva any further to get distracted from dealing with my substantive complaint by starting off my response to them by referring to SARs which the recipient in all probability will have no knowledge of.  

 

I think the emphasis of the response ought to be on the CEO acquainting herself with the facts of the case (which their letter appears to suggest she wants to do) and for her to agree to cease pursuing the OP for what is an entirely spurious debt, rather than reminding Aviva that they are legally obliged to respond to SARs.  By all means include a reference to the SARs at the end of the letter (and complain about how they have handled them to date), but they should not, in my view, be the opening focus of the response.

 

At the end of the day, the OP isn't really bothered about whether Aviva respond to an SAR or not, she simply wants them off her back.

 

But as I say, we can agree to differ.

 

(And I still don't understand what is happening here.  What the OP ideally wants now is for the CEO to take an interest (Ha! again... ) in the case, look into it and come to the right decision from the OP's point of view - but without realising that the FOS has already ruled in Aviva's favour.  It's crazy).

 

And the OP must remember to meet the FOS extended rejection deadline whatever else happens.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Manxman in exile the letter they've sent me just proves how incompetent they are and how they've allowed themselves to be victims of fraud by not doing the necessary checks in the first place had they done so we wouldn't be in this situation now 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the SAR is extremely important. It may reveal correspondence of which we are not aware. It may also refer to their abuse process or other processes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@BankFodderI agree should I mention the new crime reference number in the email ?  I will draft response and put it on here before I email it across 

Edited by Titchytitch
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Titchytitch said:

Dear Data Protection Team, Dear Amanda Blanc, Dear Mary Temple,

Thank you for your letter dated 8th May which apparently is intended to respond to my letter of 9th April which has left me very confused and perplexed.


I've no idea who Amanda Blanc is and I've no idea who Mary Temple is either.

It's encouraging to note that Amanda apparently takes a personal interest in all matters – because nobody else in Aviva has done so far.

I don't really know what you are referring to – but I will remind you that you have received a statutory subject access request dated 2Xrd April from myself and although you have responded acknowledging it by way of letter dated Xth May 2021, you have also gone on to ask for verification of my identity.


Of course, you are entitled to do this if it is deemed necessary – and in order to save an argument, I have supplied you with the information you want.


However, I think you need to make Mary and Amanda aware that the request for identity verification is unlawful in the circumstances because you already have ample information as to my identity because you have happily sent me  demands, threats, and have referred to me in correspondence with the financial ombudsman and so forth.

Clearly your demand for identity verification is unnecessary – and as I have already said it is obstructive and unlawful.

I'm pointing out to you once again though, that even though you have requested identity verification the Data Protection Act makes it clear that you are not entitled to use this as a delaying tactic and so the clock is still running and your 30 days expires on the 26th April date by which time I would have expected to receive full disclosure.

If Amanda wants to demonstrate her personal interest, then she can look through the file and start to understand what has happened here and the fact that Aviva has become the victim of a fraud which was perpetuated by a man who at the time you thought was my husband despite his different name, different address, and being unwilling to let you speak to me.


 

Furthermore, the man who represented himself as my husband took out an insurance policy with you for the purpose of "fronting".  If you are not sure what "fronting" is, then you should seek clarification from someone in your office with experience.


I'm quite certain that if there had been an accident and he had begun a claim, you would soon have exercised greater diligence than you did when you set up the policy in order to find a way to deny any loss and you would have soon discovered that the policy was taken out fraudulently and also for fraudulent "fronting" purposes and you wouldn't then have hesitated to cancel the cover and withhold any compensation from everyone.

You may be interested to know that the man who represented himself as my husband went on to attempt to commit frauds on at least 10 other companies – most of them in an attempt to obtain loans. Those companies exercised greater diligence then you did with the result that they declined his loan applications and in fact marked the applications as fraudulent. They did not become victims. I have obtained a crime reference number on 2Xth April 1xxxxx.

Not only were there all the signs in place that the man who claimed to be my husband was perpetrating a fraud upon you, all the signs were also in place that this was an example of domestic financial abuse.

Even the Financial Ombudsman Service found that the man "controlled the policy".

You may not be familiar with Asian naming conventions, but even to the most scarcely trained person, the names which were being used by the man who pretended to be my husband and also the name by which he identified me, are clearly names which are very often associated with closely knit extended families.


I have looked at your website and I see that you make a song and dance about being able to spot the signs of financial abuse and you also claim that your staff are trained.  You also make a feature of the fact that you have associated yourself with the abuse organisation "Surviving Economic Abuse".

Clearly this is nothing more than a piece of marketing to present yourselves as "woke".

I suppose that you will say that the fraud committed by the man claiming to be my husband occurred before you had implemented any abuse policies or any training. That may well be the case – but certainly any policies and training were implemented by the time that the matter came to light and you started to pursue me for a debt which was not mine.

The truth is that it is Aviva which is the victim of fraud. However, you have decided to pursue me to cut your losses and because you see me as the weakest link. Buck-passing.

Bravo.

If Amanda really takes a personal interest in this and if Mary Temple really is going to do something about this then I suggest the following:

  • First, you contact the financial ombudsman whose final decision has not yet been confirmed – and tell the ombudsman that you no longer want to participate in the process and that there is no need for a final decision either way.
  • Second, you should undo all the damage that you have caused to me in terms of credit files CIFAS marker's and so forth.
  • Third, you should alter all your records to show that I am not in debt to you – but in fact that you are the victim of fraud by a man who claimed to be my husband and whom you helped to set up a fraudulent policy.
  • Fourth, you should inform the police that you are a victim of fraud.
  • Fifth, you can take steps to give me full disclosure of my personal data as requested on XXrd April 2021 – without any mucking around and without the need for me to escalate this into a serious conflict.
  • Sixth, you can confirm to me whether or not you disclosed your abuse policies to the ombudsman as part of the evidence you sent them.
  • Seventh, you can disclose to me the abuse policies that you have put in place and you can give me details of the abuse training which you apparently apply to all your staff.


I can provide you with the full name and contact details of the controlling man who pretended to be my husband – and in fact is my brother.

 

You may like to know that the police are fully aware of my brother's activities including his involvement with Aviva to obtain a fraudulent insurance policy. The police are fully aware of all the communications which you apparently sent to me – most of which I believe went into a portal to which you prevented me having any access.

Although the police are fully aware of all of the facts, they do not consider that I am a person of interest in their investigation and this runs counter to what the financial ombudsman has apparently decided although if you look closely at the wording of the prospective decision, you will find that the Financial ombudsman is merely speculating.

 

I am not holding my breath in respect of any of this. I don't believe you have the courage – but I do hope that you will satisfy my subject access request without forcing me to litigate the matter.
 

Finally, I would remind you that you have duties under the FCA sourcebook to treat your customers fairly and to communicate with them fairly. These are statutory duties and may also be subject to litigation by an aggrieved individual.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CC – Financial Ombudsman Service

 

@BankFodder i have tweaked this  ever so slightly - good to go?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added some lines – and read and made some corrections. I should leave out the stuff about being confused and perplexed. It really doesn't help – all this shock and awe stuff. And in any event, grammatically you have expressed it in a way so that your shock and awe appears to be expressed in relation to your own letter – not the letter which you have received from Aviva.

Keep the emotion stuff out of it. You've got lots of good ammunition here. You don't need to start diluting it with outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please would you go to the Aviva website and get screenshots of the pages which carry anything relating to abuse, abuse policy or training.

Thanks

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...