Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Andybars

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    218

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Andybars

  1. Andybars
    Hi - looking at the thread I can't see that you have actually raised a PPI complaint with RBS yet. The Ombudsman will expect you to complain to RBS first and allow them 8 weeks to respond before it will take on the case. My view would be to go back to RBS sending them a copy of the FOS PPI questionnaire (which may be different from the one RBS sent and is available on the FOS website), elaborating your concerns particularly that you were self-employed and in and out of work and therefore you would never have been able to make the claim. Given that RBS are already aware you are self-employed I would expect your chances of the complaint being upheld are good. Make sure you keep a copy of the FOS PPI questionnaire and that way if RBS turn you down or don't respond in 8 weeks you can escalate the case to FOS without further delay
  2. Andybars
    Even though a PPI Policy has been cancelled there is the potential to make a claim if it was mis-sold
  3. Andybars
    Hi Moormoor, it is certainly possible to claim against a mis-sold L&G PPI Policy. However as ims21 says L&G are an insurance company so it is almost certain that a third party (quite probably an estate agent) is responsible for the sale as it is they who advised you (or should have done) on the policy. Are you able to recall how the policy was sold and by whom ?
  4. Andybars
    Whilst Vehicles is not my area of expertise - the fact that the final response does not include details of how to refer to the Financial Ombudsman Service suggests an organisation with little understanding of how to deal with complaints properly.
  5. Andybars
    I would ask MBNA for a copy of their calculations explaining that you cant accept the offer without checking it. MBNA are one of the few lenders that will send full calculations (ironic since they are often amongst the least accurate). Once you have these and post an anonymised version on line somebody can have a look at these for you
  6. Andybars
    The information that they gave you verbally was misleading - whether or not they also gave you the correct information in small print at a later date would not over-rule this. In terms of what the loan was used for, this is generally not something that would greatly affect the case. However if you were consolidating debts and thus more likely to consolidate again in the near future this would make a single premium policy more unsuitable
  7. Andybars
    In terms of working part-time, if you were working an average of less than 16 hours per week - this would be very relevant as it would mean that you were never eligible to take out the insurance and could never have made a claim
  8. Andybars
    Given the circumstances - I think the outcome of the PPI complaint is almost certain to be that it is outside jurisdiction and for you to refer it to the FSCS - I would therefore raise a new complaint about Click Financial with the FSCS. In the highly unlikely circumstance that the outcome is different you can always withdraw your complaint from the FSCS. This would (IMHO) be a better plan than waiting for an ombudsman outcome which will be months rather than weeks.
  9. Andybars
    The FSCS register shows that Click Financial was declared in default on 21 April 2011 - you would therefore need to raise the complaint with the FSCS http://www.fscs.org.uk
  10. Andybars
    Given that the adjudication says "please let me know as soon as possible, ideally by 24th March, I think FOS would have a hard time suggesting you were out of time to escalate to an Ombudsman and I definitely still think it is worth a go. In terms of the PPI - can I assume that "Bank Charge Recovery" didnt contact Click for Freedom in 2012. Therefore you should raise the complaint directly with the broker without the "help" of "Bank Charge Recovery" ASAP
  11. Andybars
    FOS are looking at the charges issue - you are unhappy with the outcome on the charges issue so that should be referred to an Ombudsman In terms of the mis-sale of the PPI, Blemain have advised that a broker is responsible for the sale - so you should complain about the initial sale to the broker. If they are no longer trading then as the policy was sold after 14 Jan 2005 the Financial Services Compensation Scheme will look at it. Its not a quick process but it is worth pursuing
  12. Andybars
    I would go back to FOS and advise that the adjudicator is wrong to have closed her file. You accepted the adjudication on the basis that payment would be made and it has not, therefore you wish the case to be escalated to an Ombudsman. If she says she cant do this, ask to speak to a manager and keep escalating until somebody takes it seriously. (essentially if the case is re-opened it's one less from her completed cases target and means she has to do some extra work - hence she isn't keen to do it)
  13. Andybars
    Joox - if this is what you were told by Halifax regarding cancellation, then this should be the basis of your complaint
  14. Andybars
    NB if you go for an Ombudsman decision - it is only binding on you, if you accept it - so you can still seek an Ombudsman review and if you disagree with the outcome take court action
  15. Andybars
    To clarify, the default itself will drop off the credit record after 6 years and will no longer be seen by lenders. What will be seen is that you have most likely had limited credit activity in the past 4 or 5 years and as Brig says the new mortgage guidance means that mortgage applications are being thoroughly scrutinised for affordability (not in itself a bad thing) but most lenders are being incredibly cautious in their interpretation with an inquisition into current spending and previous credit. The fact that you have a current mortgage will definitely count in your favour (assuming a good payment history) however even making changes with your current lender may prove problematic at the moment My own view would be to wait for the default to drop off and take stock of what else is on your credit report before researching other mortgage deals - there is also a likelihood that lenders may be interpreting the new guidance a little more consistently by then
  16. Andybars
    Send them the FOS questionnaire, this contains all the information that they require. (if there is a reference on their questionnaire you should copy this across). Also keep a copy so if the case does need to go to FOS you don't have to fill in a second one
  17. Andybars
    That's good news - but just remember MBNA's idea of "within FOS guidelines" may differ from that of everybody else. I would await the figures and see how they compare to your own - if the offer isn't within the guidelines you should go back to FOS and ask them to investigate further
  18. Andybars
    In answer to your questions; 1) They can offset a refund of interest that you have paid against the debt but not the 8% interest 2) If you believe it is incorrect then you can ask for their calculations and if not forthcoming raise the case with FOS 3) Natwest loans offered a non pro-rata refund on cancellation . Essentially some of the money was refunded, but some wasn't and was therefore rolled into the next loan e.g PPI was £1000, cancelled half way through the term. Rather than £500 being refunded (half the premium), perhaps £300 would be refunded and you are therefore borrowing an extra £200 on the next loan (the rolled up PPI) - (NB this is a very simplified example and these aren't the actual figures, its just to illustrate the principle)
  19. Andybars
    In terms of the cheques, you could write to them with something along the lines of "although the figures differ from my own I can confirm that I will accept your offers on the strict basis that these offers are in full and final settlement of any further claims arising from these accounts" In terms of offering a full and final on an outstanding balance there are lots of factors involved, the lender, the amount, the paperwork held and how confident they would be of enforcing in court and also how the lender views your circumstances. If you were settling a Lloyds case, assuming the departments share information, I cant see them accepting a F&F given they know you have £20k +in cheques on the mantelpiece. If it was another lender and you have established the debt is enforceable then my personal view is always start low and work up - if you are hoping to settle at 30%, I would be starting around the 10% mark
  20. Andybars
    If you accept in full and final settlement, my own view is they would struggle to request repayment of an overpaid amount from you as "full and final " has to work both ways. In all likelihood, given the volumes of cases that they are dealing with it is unlikely that anybody would even look at the case again.
  21. Andybars
    With certain insurers a search for insurance on monthly basis will show as a credit search rather than just an insurance quotation search on your credit file. In the whole this shouldn't impact negatively unless it is one of a number of credit searches conducted in a relatively short period. If you do take out insurance on a monthly basis and pay on time each month, it would be unlikely to adversely impact on your credit score (unless it tipped the number of accounts or amount outstanding outside a particular lender's scorecard)
  22. Andybars
    I think the OP intended to refer to TT debunking the myths rather than being responsible for the myths themselves. If this was the case they are right to take head as TT is more knowledgeable on the subject than the vast majority even of those involved in the industry
  23. Andybars
    Whilst the article is clearly written in simplistic terms, the underlying issue is that comparative redress is being used in wholly inappropriate situations in many (but not all cases). Whilst I agree that any letter offering comparative redress should explain what is being offered many do not and in fact some make no mention of the fact that this method is being adopted, merely stating that an offer is being made "broadly in line with FOS guidance". Certainly for a lender who did not offer a monthly policy it is inappropriate, the other shady practice is using the FCA default of £9 per £100 of cover by those lenders who did have a monthly policy and who charged less than this.
  24. Andybars
    The RBS letters state that it should have sold the customer a regular premium policy - this despite the fact that it didn't even offer a regular premium policy at that time so could never have done so !
  25. Andybars
    Hi RBS will definitely hold your loan details from 17 years ago and a Subject Access Request should provide this information. If you are comfortable contacting them by phone - the PPI team should be able to tell you your account numbers and whether there was PPI (although they are not 100% accurate this may give you some information relatively quickly). If you want all the info before making a claim (which is IMHO the best approach to take) then a DSAR is the way ahead

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...