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.

mightymouse_69

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    917

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mightymouse_69

  1. mightymouse_69
    So you should see what the ombudsman says first. Firms have mis applied this rule before - so it's worth asking. But you're at least aware it's a potential issue. As for any other courses of action - some will say court. But that means spending money and chances are slim.
  2. mightymouse_69
    You're wrong here. We've already discussed this. The time bar rule works as follows: a complaint should be made 6 years from the date of the event complained about or, 3 years after you became aware you had cause to complain. You're complaining about the sale of the PPI. That was 2007, so the 6 years was up in 2013. The 3 year part of the rule may give you some extra time - however, how it is applied depends on each case. For example, if you said that you didn't know you had the policy, but they sent out annual statements, then these could trigger the 3 years.
  3. mightymouse_69
    You could try and make a backdated claim for those periods of sickness. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say PPI wasn't an option because you were covered at work. It's quite rare that Mortgage PPI is sold without people being aware - but if you do feel that this was the case, then by all means challenge Halifax's decision and ask the Ombudsman to look at it. I can confirm that I don't work for Halifax.
  4. mightymouse_69
    If you have a policy document, I'd suggest you read it again to check. It'd be very, very rare for a policy to not pay out alongside sick pay. Every Halifax policy I've seen did this - and if that wasn't the case, Halifax would know by now to uphold the complaint straight away. From what they've said, it does seem that you would benefit from the policy.
  5. mightymouse_69
    It'll be a waste of time. They'll just write back and refer you back to the previous letter.
  6. mightymouse_69
    No it doesn't! Most mortgage PPI policies will pay out for 12 months. The OP has told us that they had sick pay which would pay full pay for 6 months and half pay for a further 6. So already, it is clear that the MPPI was better than their sick pay. If the OP was off work for loner than 6 months, their income would drop by 50%. The PPI policy would continue to pay the mortgage - one less thing to worry about.
  7. mightymouse_69
    I'd be cautious. Barclaycard will basically point out that your claim is essentially a claim for costs. Costs which were incurred by you, of your own freewill. They'll explain that no attempt was made to mitigate the costs, for example, by using the recommended channels of appeal when they gave the initial response to your complaint. They'll also explain that they were within their rights to reject your complaint at first. Most big businesses - and Barclaycard should be no exception - have changed the way they look at complaints a great deal in the past few years. This is because they have learned lessons from complaints which have be decided previously, usually by the FOS. As time has gone on, approaches to certain cases have been developed. A complaint which could have been quite reasonably rejected a few years ago may now be upheld today given the approaches formulated. Of course, it is your choice - but just make sure you get some decent advice beforehand.
  8. mightymouse_69
    The FOS can only look into certain complaints - namely, those categorised as regulated activites. It can look into other issues - such as poor customer service, but only if it comes alongside a complaint about a regulated activity. A complaint to try and recover fees paid to a CMC would probably fail anyway - whether it was considered by FOS or a court. Barclaycard didn't force you to use the CMC. If you were unhappy with their initial response, you had an option to challenge it for free... i.e go straight to FOS. The best hope one has is that the business makes a goodwill offer.
  9. mightymouse_69
    That doesn't look right. What you'll get back is all the premiums you paid, plus the interest (at the card rate) paid on those premiums. You won't get a refund of all the interest you paid on the card overall. The 8% will only apply where your card account would've been in credit had it not been for PPI. What Clydesdale ought to do is reconstruct your account to get a picture of what it would have looked like had you not taken out PPI. If there are any occasions where your account would've been in credit, you'll get 8% interest on that amount. You will not get 8% on the total amount - and it may be the case that you'll not be entitled to any interest at 8% at all.
  10. mightymouse_69
    1) Section 140A is applied retrospectively in some cases. If your credit agreement was entered into before April 2007, which is when S140A kicked in, the unfair relationship issues would only be relevant if the agreement was still in place in April 2008 - which is when the legislation began to apply regardless of when the agreement was entered into. 2) The sale of your policy was probably not an advised sale by the FCA definition. A advised sale would be one where the advisor asks certain questions about your circumstances before recommending a certain policy. Advisors would need to be qualified to do this, since they are giving financial advice. A sale being categorised as "advised" results in a slightly higher bar being set for the business. Where the sale is non advised, they just have to show that information about the policy was given to let you make your own mind up. Where as in an advised sale, they have to show that clear information was given, but also that they then recommended a policy which was suitable for you given your circumstances. The sales advisor saying things like "this policy will be good if you end up out of work" or other sales patter wouldn't be enough for the sale to be considered a recommended sale. I don't think the unfair relationships issue necessarily adds any more weight to your argument. It has been known since the beginning that some staff received a reward for selling PPI. In fact, some businesses made more from the PPI than they did the product they sold it alongside.
  11. mightymouse_69
    Here is an FCA statement on the issue, which gives some background: https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statement-on-payment-protection-insurance-ppi (scroll down to the section titled "Plevin") The FCA consultation has concluded. It is now a matter of the FCA digesting the responses and working out where to go from there. It could be quite a while - though no firm time frame has been set. I wouldn't say that this necessarily gives an advantage to any PPI mis-selling complaint. The FCA has proposed that where a complaint is affected by the unfair commission issue, then the consumer should be refunded the difference between a fair level of commission and the commission they actually paid. It will not be a refund of all the premiums - which is what would happen had there been a failure during the sale of the policy.
  12. mightymouse_69
    Do you have figures on the percentages of complaints that FOS consider they cannot deal with? Part of the answer to your question is: "The ADR Directive". It used to be that FOS would take on all complaints unless the business objected due to time barring. Now it's the opposite. The FOS has to be sure that the business consents to them looking into a complaint which may have been referred after the 6/3 years. I think you need to read the documents a little more carefully. A few pages in, it says: and So a CCL is something which can trigger the three years - but it isn't the only thing (hence the statement here showing that the three years could have begun before a CCL is sent). I'd also, again, point out the actual rules. Dis 2.8.2 - I posted the text above. It says nothing about CCLs there - because they are a device used for PPI to trigger a rule which has many other potential triggers.
  13. mightymouse_69
    Why isn't it helpful? You said something which wasn't correct - so I corrected it. The business doesn't have to send out any special letter to start the time bar clock. So long as their is evidence that the consumer ought to have known there was a reason to complain, then the clock starts running. If Mr X complains that he had no idea he had PPI, and the business presents 10 years worth of statements all clearly showing PPI... then the time bar is satisfied. It is just a matter as to whether the business will be willing to waive this and allow the FOS to continue with their investigation. Quasar911 needs to be aware of this, because it might be an issue which crops up if he issues proceedings against Nationwide.
  14. mightymouse_69
    Incorrect. Disp 2.8.2 says that a complaint cannot be considered by the Ombudsman if it is brought more than six years after the event complained about or more than...: "three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) that he had cause for complaint" Depending on what the complaint is, PPI being shown clearly in statements would be enough to trigger this rule.
  15. mightymouse_69
    I know the people on this thread do not like what Wolverines said, they do have a point when it comes to getting a better copy of the card application. The original document is almost certainly long gone. What is left is usually a digital version of the document which has been scanned. Sometimes it has been scanned having been photocopied, printed, scanned... all sorts. The quality does suffer. Or it might come from a microfiche - basically your application was reduced to about a 25th of its original size and saved as a negative. When these are "blown up" to full size the quality suffers.
  16. mightymouse_69
    The Legal Ombudsman and MOJ would be more interested. CMC's are regulated by them - not the FCA, which means FOS has no jurisdiction.
  17. mightymouse_69
    Well so long as they are not copied word for word, all is well. That's all I was pointing out.
  18. mightymouse_69
    I was referring to the letters attached in one of your posts above. My input was to avoid using these - which is valuable.
  19. mightymouse_69
    I would just say that people really should avoid using the letter templates.
  20. mightymouse_69
    That is something that FOS probably won't be able to look at.
  21. mightymouse_69
    Should you try a claims management company? - No. They will not be able to do anything you have not already done. As for what else to do - it is up to you. The "it wasn't explained to me" complaint on its own probably will not be strong enough. Also, having sick pay does not necessarily mean that PPI was useless. It will boil down to how your sick pay compared to what the PPI offered considering its cost. Do you remember what sick pay your employer offered?
  22. mightymouse_69
    I don't work for a PPI claims company. In fact I'd suggest people avoid using them.
  23. mightymouse_69
    Probably not. PPI policies generally offer better benefits than those offered by employers. Many people would find the cover given by the PPI policy to be useful in addition to their employer benefits - for example, you could have used your employers sick pay for whatever you wanted without having to worry about your credit card repayments, since these were covered. I do see where you are coming from though and I appreciate that you feel strongly about this. Clearly whether you take it further is a matter for you - you just need to be aware that it will be somewhat of an uphill struggle. The first hurdle is how to take it further. All I can say is that FOS is almost certainly not an option because of the time issue. The best they can do is take the complaint on and then look into whether it is indeed out of their time limits. This will probably take the best part of two years - and it is likely to be bad news.
  24. mightymouse_69
    So: on advised v non advised. I think it can be a valid point since the obligations on the business are different depending on the sales method. On people signing without reading information - that too can be a valid point. I'm on this site to help people. And I believe that to help people you must give honest information. What I see a lot of on here is people giving their opinion as to how things should work rather than advising people on how things do work.
  25. mightymouse_69
    I don't think we have said anything controversial. All we have pointed out is that people do not get PPI premiums refunded just because they fancy it. PPI wasn't some sort of investment that people can now draw from. There has to have been something wrong with the sale of the product. It will not always be the case that something went wrong. People ought to be aware of this when they start the complaint process. For a start, it will assist them in making their complaint as it will encourage them to have a proper think as to what they think went wrong when PPI was sold to them. It will also serve as a reality check - they go into the process in an informed manner rather than believing the rubbish CMCs come out with.

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...