Fred_Funk v NatWest

[dx100uk]

i wonder if an email to them might resolve it?

 

i've not heard anything but the fos have an interesting set of new faq pdfs on their site that might help too

 

dx

[BankFodder]

You should be able to claim for mis-sold PPI all the way back. Please read the articles on the CAGMag which explain this

[Fred_Funk]

You should be able to claim for mis-sold PPI all the way back. Please read the articles on the CAGMag which explain this

 

Believe me, I've read lots and lots of stuff and I fully appreciate you can claim for mis-sold PPI all the way back.

 

What I'm less sure of, and have been unable to find any advice on despite lots of searching, is whether the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will look at any claims from before January 2005.

 

Its website says:

 

For claims relating to insurance intermediaries: If your claim relates to business conducted before 14 January 2005 we are unlikely to be able to help you, as these activities were not protected by the FSCS before this date.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/what-we-cover/eligibility-rules/when-did-fscs-coverage-begin/

 

However, I was wondering whether, in light of the Judicial Review's decision to uphold the FSA's approach, the way might now be clear for the FSCS to look at claims for mis-sold PPI dating from before January 2005.

 

Once again, any thoughts much appreciated.

[steven4064]

However, I was wondering whether, in light of the Judicial Review's decision to uphold the FSA's approach, the way might now be clear for the FSCS to look at claims for mis-sold PPI dating from before January 2005.

BF's answer is 'yes'

[Fred_Funk]

BF's answer is 'yes'

 

Just wondered if anyone would care to elaborate on that 'yes'.

 

Especially as I spoke to someone at the FSCS and his answer was no. That said, he didn't appear the sharpest knife in the drawer, to the extent that when I mentioned the Judicial Review, with regard to PPI, he appeared to have no idea what I was talking about.

 

He was, however, insistent that the FSCS couldn't look at claims from before January of 2005.

 

I'd like to think he's wrong, and I dare say he is, but I desperately need someone to point me in the direction of something I can go back to the FSCS with.

 

Thanks in anticipation of your help

Fred_Funk

[dx100uk]

i cant see the need to any longer go worry about 'what' this bunch of say.

 

theres now a clear remit that the PPI must be repaid

 

if this bunch are saying 'we wont pay out before XXXX' date , then something is wrong here!!

 

dx

[joe90-123]

The FSCS came into force as a regulatory body in Jan 2005 the rules before that governed compensation from a financial body that was no longer able to cover it's finacial comitments was purely a voluntary shceme and was uneforcable by law.

Since the scheme came into effect ( Jan 2005 ) all financial institutions had to sign up to the guide lines , so if you have a claim for the miss-selling or any other claim and the financial body in question has gone into liqudation or default with the FSA you can submit a claim for redress within the terms of the FSCS (financial services compensation scheme ) any case that is pre scheme will not i repeat will not be looked at by the fscs

 

I state again this scheme was put in place to cover cases involving companies that can not longer cover there financial commitments and are in default with the FSA.

 

James.

[dx100uk]

urm.. then there must be someonee to take to court to get it back..........thanks for the info too.useful.

 

i think a lot more will come out of the ppi case decision in relation to all ppi issues and how they are dealt with.

 

the days of hiding under a stone are now are long gone

 

let the fight begin

 

dx

 

 

dx

[Fred_Funk]

urm.. then there must be someonee to take to court to get it back..........thanks for the info too.useful.

 

i think a lot more will come out of the ppi case decision in relation to all ppi issues and how they are dealt with.

 

the days of hiding under a stone are now are long gone

 

let the fight begin

 

dx

 

 

dx

 

If there is then, it goes without saying, I'd be very interested to hear who it is but I fear what joe90-123 says is, regrettably, correct.

[MrZ]

You can try to take London Scottish to court but they have no money. Alternatively if your complaint for PPI is upheld (which London Scottish are upholding all complaints) you can then register as a creditor with the Administrators. (Ernst & Young). If and when you get to the top of the queue and there is money left you will get paid otherwise you wont. FSCS wont touch it if its pre the 2005 cut off.

 

Other than that, there's not much else that you can do of which I am aware.

[Fred_Funk]

It seems to have disappeared overnight.

 

I realise the review is now over but, be that as it may, there was - I'm sure others will agree - some really interesting and useful discussion going on.

 

Please can someone restore the thread or, at the very least, provide an explanation as to why it's been removed.

 

Thanks

Fred_Funk

[citizenB]

Not guilty - gremlins at work - thread will be restored as soon as possible.

[Fred_Funk]

Not guilty - gremlins at work - thread will be restored as soon as possible.

 

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[Dustyd]

Hi Fred Funk,

 

I am similar to you, so please excuse the subbing on this thread.

 

I've had a £7k PPI (on top of a £20k loan) claim declined by London Scottish, as it was pre January 2005. The gauling thing is, the loan was actually executed on 16th December 2004, so just a few weeks pre FSA covernance. I've been busy reading all the paperwork and T's and C's today, and see I had a 28 day cancelation window, which would take it into FSA territory maybe?

 

I would appreciate it if anyone had any thoughts, as £7k plus interest would be a really healthy sum.

 

Dusty

 

 

 

I'm afraid joe90-123 is correct. The scheme only came into being in Jan 2005 and is applicable only from then.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with taking PPI cases to court for policies sold prior to Jan 2005 is that there were no specific regulations governing the sale of PPI (that are actionable in court by a private individual) as it pre-dates ICOB & ICOBS. You would have to rely on general law and that would only be helpful to you in limited circumstances.

 

It might be worth speaking to the administrators Ernst & Young 0161 333000.

 

 

[MrZ]

I'm afraid joe90-123 is correct. The scheme only came into being in Jan 2005 and is applicable only from then.

The problem with taking PPI cases to court for policies sold prior to Jan 2005 is that there were no specific regulations governing the sale of PPI (that are actionable in court by a private individual) as it pre-dates ICOB & ICOBS. You would have to rely on general law and that would only be helpful to you in limited circumstances.

 

It might be worth speaking to the administrators Ernst & Young 0161 333000.

 

You're right. And this was the point I was trying to make. You can claim, you will likely get it upheld. However as the dates are pre FSCS, there is no pot of money to claim from. You can go to court but why? They have no money. The best thing is to claim, get it upheld and then list yourself as a creditor with Ernst & Young.

 

On a side note, London Scottish have a rep for dodgey underwriting and non compliant agreements. As the dates would be well befor 2007, s 127 of the CCA 1974 would still apply, and you would have a good chance of getting the whole thing thrown out. That may be helpful for those who still have outstanding balances. The key point to remember if this is the case is not to go after them. Let them take you to court then use the above to defend. The idea of using the above as a claim is not a good idea thanks to the Hon. Judge Waxman (sp?).

[Dustyd]

I think the key here maybe "unlikely". It doesn't say a definite No.

 

Maybe in light of the judicial review more may come of this, as I understand it lenders were told to get their houses in order in prep for the 15th Jan 2005 deadline.

[Fred_Funk]

I've noticed a few PPI threads in which claimants unable to pursue the company which sold them the PPI - if, for instance, they've gone out of business - have been advised to pursue instead the company which provided the insurance.

 

In this instance, the insurance was provided by ACE Insurance of Crawley, in West Sussex, and underwritten by CIGNA. In 2002, unbeknown to me, the policy was transferred to Pinnacle Insurance plc.

 

Given ACE was, it seems, a member of the Association of British Insurers when the policy was first taken out in 1998, is there a legal precedent for pursuing them?!

 

As ever, any thoughts much appreciated.

 

Thanks

Fred_Funk

[Smoothound]

I've just recently had a payout by MBNA but in my opinion it is an absolute joke compared to what I was claiming

but would possibly uphold the 2005 cutoff

 

I'm going to give it to the FOS to pursue now because the actual miss sell goes back to 1995 or thereabouts and they appear to have paid back to 2006/2005

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275172-MBNA-PPI-Query

[MrZ]

I've just recently had a payout by MBNA but in my opinion it is an absolute joke compared to what I was claiming

but would possibly uphold the 2005 cutoff

 

I'm going to give it to the FOS to pursue now because the actual miss sell goes back to 1995 or thereabouts and they appear to have paid back to 2006/2005

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?275172-MBNA-PPI-Query

 

The FOS wont look at claims if the firm wasnt regulated, althought they may tell you to look at claiming against the underwriter.

[Fred_Funk]

The FOS wont look at claims if the firm wasnt regulated, althought they may tell you to look at claiming against the underwriter.

 

With regard to post #17, ACE were, it seems, regulated at the time by the ABI. That being the case, do you think there's any mileage in pursuing it with the FOS?!

[Smoothound]

Seems the advice on here changes like the wind

 

When I started my claim thread all advice said yeah go back to day one get all your money out of the thieving **** but now all of a sudden you can't!! Seems I've wasted hours of my time working out the figures etc, money spent on recording letters only now to be told I can only go back to 2005. I know I've got some money back but it just seems wrong that they can accept it was misold but only from 11 years after it was mis sold Seems the banks are still winning and ripping us off all the time

[MrZ]

Its worth a try. Ring the FOS. You may need to hold for 5 or 10 minutes, but they will do a search on the firm and tell you yes or no. If yes they will also take brief details and open a claim for you. Then you only need to send your documents with a cover letter stating the reference number. Doesnt take very long to get it in the system that way.

 

Also bear in mind that they will tell you that you have to complain to the firm, and allow 8 weeks or their final response, whichever comes first, then you can officially complain to the FOS. YOu can get a reference number at any time though.

Edited August 17, 2011 by MrZ

[Smoothound]

I've spoken to the FOS and roughed out the case as it is and have just filled in the forms they sent so they seem quite happy to pursue it. I just hope they are not going to turn round and say I've wasted more of my time

[MrZ]

Seems the advice on here changes like the wind

 

When I started my claim thread all advice said yeah go back to day one get all your money out of the thieving **** but now all of a sudden you can't!! Seems I've wasted hours of my time working out the figures etc, money spent on recording letters only now to be told I can only go back to 2005. I know I've got some money back but it just seems wrong that they can accept it was misold but only from 11 years after it was mis sold Seems the banks are still winning and ripping us off all the time

 

I think there are a couple of factors at play here.

 

1. The FOS gives guidance to lenders which states they should not reject a claim flatly because it may be beyond 6 years. It just also happens to be that 6 years from today (2011) puts you right around the Jan 2005 start date. That date being when this type of sale was regulated. This also means that next year or thereafter that a claim should not be rejected and would in effect mean 7+ years going back to Jan 2005.

2. Whilst the FOS says a claim shouldnt be flatly rejected because of the time expired, that doesnt mean that the FOS can look at claims prior to Jan 2005, if the firm in question was not regulated. Although some lenders have not made an issue and have refunded charges going well beyond 2005. There is no way to know what position a specific lender will take until a claim is made. Some uphold, others reject...its almost a roll of the dice.

3. The FOS does not adjudicate the law. This is for the courts to do. The courts look at the statute and apply the law in a specific circumstance in order to best serve the overriding objective. This is a matter that would need to be argued based on the individual circumstances.

 

One thing is true regardless of any of the above, that is one should always be careful when accepting advice from anyone, trained and or not. There are solicitors who are more less general practices and may not fully understand all aspects of consumer law, contract law, etc. Many judges dont know either and they often rely on counsel to present the relevent statute or case law. This means that just because you may be paying someone who is a so called expert, they may not be giving you the best advice possible. Bottom line is...get a second opinion.

 

There is nothing stopping someone from making these claims. They might be upheld or they might be rejected. If they are rejected, you can then look at the reasons given for the rejection and take it from there.

[Fred_Funk]

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group