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
    I think this is all a little broadbrush. It didn't appear on everyone's accounts. When it did, it wasn't a magical appearance. In the vast majority of cases it was selected. It also did provide useful cover to people. It is wrong to say that it "never" covered people. Not everyone who sold PPI was on commission. That isn't to say that a PPI mis-selling problem is non-existent. It happened. But people also have to be prepared to accept that they may not have fallen 'victim' to it - even if they do have PPI.
  2. mightymouse_69
    Don't forget that FOS operates differently to the courts when it comes to evidence and how it reaches its decisions. When someone makes an allegation, FOS will expect the business to answer it. FOS will weigh up both sides using its own approach. In court, there is a much higher burden on the claimant (you) to prove your case. It is something you should think very carefully about - and I certainly would take care when relying on FOS decisions having considered, as I said above, the differences in their process compared to the courts.
  3. mightymouse_69
    How on earth does an 'x' make for an advised sale?! The "I was told to sign it!" argument is a non starter. Best avenue is self employment - OP should just try and get something together... accounts, tax documents... anything. Referral to the FLA doesn't bode well (pre 2005 sale).
  4. mightymouse_69
    That wont happen. I would think you would need a change in the law... it it would be rather unfair.
  5. mightymouse_69
    That could backfire. Such a move would cause more publicity. Claims Management Companies would go into hyperdrive. Complaints would sky rocket. The result would be another mountain of cases at the Ombudsman - just as they had after the Judicial Review. That isn't good for the financial institutions or their customers. It is better for the financial institutions to leave it as is. Many have sent out letters to their customers explaining that there may have been an issue in the sale of PPI. Give it three years and those complaints are time barred. Then it is just a matter of hoping the surge will slow down and eventually become a trickle...
  6. mightymouse_69
    These "the rep ticked the box" things go no where (most of the time). If you are making that very specific allegation - it has to be proved. It turns into a case of one persons word against another concerning a transaction which took place years ago. Difficult.
  7. mightymouse_69
    That is a definition. But included in that would be instances where consent was not given or sought. I am not sure what you are getting at here. But when a policy is found to have been mis-sold, there is no automatic referral to any law enforcement agency. Don't forget, it you allege fraud or theft, you are going to have to prove dishonesty to a criminal standard. It's pretty much a non starter. There has been a finding that there was an issue in the way many policies was sold. There was also (just like with any product) some admin errors - these things happen. There's an established route to put these things right.
  8. mightymouse_69
    I can't say I fully agree with this. The reason being summed up by Hortz: Which is something I have seen too. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that genuine cases of people never knowing they had PPI attached are in the minority. The biggest uphold reasons would be down to, I'd suggest: policy costs (and this heading encompasses a number of individual issues) and suitability* (again, this heading includes a number if issues). What you would be left with would be a narrow band of cases where consent really is in issue. And with these, you'd have a tough job proving a crime had taken place. *I don't mean suitability in the sense of advised sales either. I mean the word in a more general sense.
  9. mightymouse_69
    It can be both. On the regulatory side, that would be a case of mis-selling. On the criminal side, it could amount to a fraud or kindred offense. The reason it can come under the mis-selling heading is because seeking consent to add the policy was a requirement. The trouble is that no one really knows how the PPI came to be charged again after you had previously cancelled it. One potential cause is that when your card transferred, something went wrong and the fact that you had previously complained and cancelled the policy was not carried across. Another thing that can happen is that when accounts transfer, paperwork is sent out for the individual to sign and the PPI element is not particularly clear. For example, it may have required you to opt out rather than opt in. This is a regulatory issue rather than a criminal one.
  10. mightymouse_69
    The "I wasn't permanently employed because I was self employed" argument will never win. Typically, employment is defined as being an employee or being self employed. The real issue here is whether the policy terms for self employed people would have made it harder for you to claim. Some policies did make it harder and other policies didn't.
  11. mightymouse_69
    For the same reason you took the decision to employ a Claims Management Company? I.e. you didn't trust what Barclays said, or thought you'd at least have another go at things or just wanted to check on what they had said. Having had a negative response from a business, the reasonable route to take is to go to the Ombudsman - as directed by the business' response. The use of a 'professional' adviser in these types of cases is rarely, if ever, warrented. The rules which govern this type of thing are quite clear on that. I doubt you'll get the money you owe the CMC back. You may get some token award though to take into account Barclays' poor handling of your complaint.
  12. mightymouse_69
    There is nothing wrong with those questions - they appear on the FOS form (in fact, the one you have been sent is probably a copy of the FOS form). Because you are claiming that the business did something wrong during the sale of PPI, the business will want to know what the circumstances of the sale were.
  13. mightymouse_69
    My view: It would be akin to asking the business to pay OP's 'legal' fees. Although FOS has the power to do this, it can only do so where it would be reasonable. Seeking 'professional' help from a CMC probably would not be seen as reasonable - as the rules themselves say, FOS is designed for people to approach them directly and not via a claims company. When the OP got his response from the business, he would have been given referral rights and would have had the option to go to FOS at that point. That said - it might still be worth a try, though I would not expect it to go very far.
  14. mightymouse_69
    If the borrowing happened before the IVAs were started, then you'll have to speak to whoever managed your IVA. If any complaints are upheld, the money you get back could end up going into the IVA. So, your best bet is to speak to your IVA practitioner and go from there.
  15. mightymouse_69
    I understand this. But remember that this is unemployment cover. Not "things are hard, I'll use the insurance to top up my earnings" cover. If, for instance, an employed person suffered a massive cut in earnings - they too would not be able to use the insurance. In a similar fashion, if a self-employed person is just going through a bad patch, the insurance would not kick in. The policy covers unemployment - being out of work and registered as so. The underwriter, quite reasonably, requires evidence that the insured person is out of work and has stopped working for the correct reasons (i.e. involuntary unemployment).
  16. mightymouse_69
    The document says that the underwriter would accept other evidence, such as bank statements, to show that the business person was unable to meet their business needs. Remember, it doesn't matter that the policy requires a self employed person to take extra steps. What matters is whether those extra steps are onerous, or exlcude the person altogether. I wouldn't have thought that demonstrating, by bank statement or other means, that you're out of work because you could not meet business needs is onerous.
  17. mightymouse_69
    I don't think the business will correspond with you if you complain again. They will just say that the matter has been dealt with and refer you back to the original final response. I'd go back to FOS - I am not sure they are right about the pre 2005 thing. Just because a product was sold pre 2005 does not automatically mean they are unable to help. It does a lot of the time, but I am sure that Marbles products are covered. As far as I am aware, HFC Bank were responsible for Marbles around the 2002 mark - so that may be useful information to give to FOS.
  18. mightymouse_69
    Take a look at the FOS site - it explains how they approach these complaints: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi-our-approach.html#1 In particular, this section: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi-our-approach.html#9 You'll see that where certain info was not disclosed, as long as this was not likely to make a difference to the person buying the policy, it will not be of much significance. That is why I asked whether your mum would have been caught by the terms which were not disclosed during the phone call.
  19. mightymouse_69
    Would you have been caught by any of the exclusions which Capital One failed to mention in the call?
  20. mightymouse_69
    Why would you take out PPI if you already had sick pay etc? Because PPI often provided much better benefits than most sick pay policies. Because with PPI, your sick pay could be used for other things (other expenses etc) whilst the insurance took care of the loan repayments. There are a few reasons. Contrary to popular belief, PPI was a very useful product for a lot of people.
  21. mightymouse_69
    I'm not saying that such practices did not occur. What I am saying is that even with the above being true, it is premature to make a post saying that this policy was definitely mis-sold. For a start, we have the problem of missing information. That's before you come to having to prove which regulatory provisions were breached in this particular sale. That's my point. I'm not saying that banks are virtuous. I'm saying that your post was not great advice to be given at this stage.
  22. mightymouse_69
    Hi, Documents are fairly important - I am not sure what companies would say none are needed and in what context they say this. As for the FSA fine in 2008 - this applied to HFC's conduct between 2005 and 2007 and focused on the suitability of HFC's advice and their record keeping. I understand your situation with HFC not having records and the loan duration not being clear. It seems as if something where you'll have to see what happens with the ombudsman - frustrating as it is.
  23. mightymouse_69
    I was fairly poorly and busy with other things for a while - though I visited the site, but didn't use my account. I never said I was an expert - I think what I said was just common sense. A computerised tick/cross does not necessarily mean the policy was mis-sold. There is no way that one can give this firm indication without gathering a lot more information - no matter what your prejudices are. Especially when the OP clearly mentions that PPI was discussed. So, with respect, when it comes to "pure speculation" I suggest that you are the guilty party. In any event, and as I said, the issue of mis-sale is largely academic. The real issue is lack of paperwork.
  24. mightymouse_69
    No indication that this was a DSG/DFS loan (and with this being single premium, I doubt it is a store loan), so one of your points falls away straight off. In any event, the presence of a computerised tick or cross is not alone a sign of mis-selling. As I said, PPI could have been discussed, opted into, and the credit agreement printed merely showing a record of whatever discussion had gone before. The poster has said PPI was discussed. So, dx, I think your posts were really bad advice. One, because it was just wrong. But also because it ignored the OP's main (and overriding) issue - the lack of documentary evidence.
  25. mightymouse_69
    That's a massive assumption. You do not know how the sale was conducted and the processes which were gone through. It is quite possible that PPI was discussed orally (say in a meeting or over the phone) with the information being recorded on a computer and then printed for signatures. I have an agreement with a 'typed' X in a box for an optional product. I most definitely opted for this myself - when I was sat in the guy's office going through the application. In any event, all of this is academic if there is insufficient documentary evidence to look into... which takes me back to the OP's question: I don't suppose you have any statements showing payments towards the loans? This should reveal the duration and at least give something for HFC to work off.

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...