Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Fred_Funk v NatWest


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 718 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 224
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

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.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites
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'

Steven

 

Using CAG Toolbar will generate much needed income - Download Here

 

Confused by Simple Interest? Confounded by Compound Interest? Read my Interest Tutorial

My Wins

 GE Money Won unconditionally May 2007

NatWest Won unconditionally August 2007

Brighthouse Won unconditionally August 2007

Goldfish Won unconditionally April 2008 (including CI on the basis of Sempra)

Clydesdale Financial Services (now BPF) Won unconditionally February 2008

 

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. Do not take any legal action on my advice alone. Almost everything I know concerning the law I learned from this site.

 

Please note, I will not give advice by PM. Please send a link to your thread and I will do my best to answer there.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :-(

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not guilty - gremlins at work - thread will be restored as soon as possible.

 

Thank you. Much appreciated.

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?).

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?!

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by MrZ

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Please overlook my typos and spelling mistakes, sometimes my fingers arent in sync with my brain :)

I am just a consumer and have no legal training. My posts are opinion only, based on my own limited experience. If in doubt you should seek legal advice from a qualified practitioner.

 

Activ Kapital - Disputed £4,000.00 - 04/04/2011 Settled! WON!

HSBC Current Account - Defaulted for £200.00 Charges. - 19/05/2011 Charges Refunded Default Removed! WON!

HSBC Loan Account - £16,000.00 Unsecured Loan - 05/07/2011 Disputed No Further Contact WON! (for Now)

Barclaycard Account - Disputed account and £1500.00 Charges. - 18/07/2011 Charges Refunded! WON!

London Scottisht - Disputed account and Charges. £25,000.00 - 06/2011 Balance reduced by 95% WON!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 7 years later...

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

NatWest: seeking unlawful charges + interest incurred as a result of those charges of £4,292.82 and contractual interest (compounded) of £4,559.41. Court claim issued 16.01.08; acknowledgement of service filled by Cobbetts on 30.01.08

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 718 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...