Don't forget that you only have 6 months from the date of their offer/response to get your complaint to the Ombudsman. So, if you do want their assistance, remember to keep an eye on the calender. Remember: On a credit card, the 8% isn't added to the amounts paid in PPI. The business reconstructs your account to show the balances of your card had you never had PPI. 8% is only added to any periords where your account would have been in credit (had you not had PPI).

Seems that it has already been established that this was a non advised sale. In such a sale, as is stated on the FOS site, all that the business need do is provide clear, fair and not mis-leading information. As such, any complaint based on the lines of no questions being asked/suitability is irrelevant.

What info were you able to give in support of your complaint - i.e. written testimony.

Hard to advise at this stage since I am a bit unclear on the facts. The general approach is that for any PPI which was purchased prior to the IVA's completion, then the IVA company has the say so on how any compensation is dealt with. So, even though you have completed the IVA, a new claim would still have to be run past the insolvency practitioner and any redress paid to them. Can you confirm what you mean by this: "The two loans I had with Natwest had not been authorised for PPI search"

Sounds like GE money just provided the finance. Since your complaint is about the actual sale of the policy, you'll only get anything out of GE if they agree to take responsibility - or if some kind of relationship can be found between them and the broker. Not incredibly straightforward. Who was the broker - the FSCS might be able to help you. However with this being a pre-2005 sale (the year where insurance sales were regulated) it may be a bit tricky trying to get them to look into this.

Judging from the paperwork alone... The Xs by your signature and date look like they are printed on - not hand drawn. This may be just down to the fact that this is a scan though. In any event - they don't really add value to your complaint. For a start, they do not appear on the PPI section. Even if they were, the choice whether to tick the 'yes' box is is still left to you. The "don't sign up without it" statement does not really alter things either. The important bit is that there is a box which was ticked. This alone would indicate that PPI was something which you could add on or do without. The statement is more of a gimmicky type thing rather than something saying that you must take out the PPI. You see this type of thing in other situations - "Don't leave without asking about our loyalty card!!!" It just sounds like a rather unfortunate encounter - being offered this card at an airport. Generally this would not be the best time to enter into a financial agreement. But then balance that with the fact that everyone has the right to say no and walk away from the predatory salesperson. .. and it is likely that there was some sort of cooling off period.

To be honest, in this case I see no point in sending a SAR at first instance. In cases where you know that you had PPI, what is the point in getting information at this stage? Information regarding PPI payments will only be useful in making sure that the level of redress is correct. As I said, there is no point in this exercise (which will cost the OP) before there has been an offer from Lloyds. In my experience, the consumer having all statements etc makes no difference to the way businesses treat complaints. They all go through the same process. My advice: complain to Lloyds, await the final response and then go from there.

I think you need to think carefully about what your complaint actually is. Is it that you were mis-sold PPI from the time you applied for the card? If so, why do you think this? Or, are you more concerned with the fact that you moved to the US and continued to pay the PPI premiums? In which case, you could ask for the premiums charged since 2005 to be returned to you... but don't be surprised if the business reply pointing out that it is your responsibility to review your financial commitments and to ensure that you make necessary changes as your circumstances change. As for how you were actually sold the PPI, internet sales were not uncommon in 2000. If you were indeed sold PPI online, this presents an issue: the business is only likely to hold a textual representation of what you input during the application stage. For some, just seeing the words "PPI: yes" on a slip of paper does not allay their fears as much as, say, seeing their postal application with a big tick in the yes box. It is not uncommon for online or telephone sales to be followed up with a document, sent to the applicant, which asks them to sign in order to confirm their selections online or over the phone.

About 12-18 months from when they have all the information (yours and the businesses). Sometimes the case will be seen to quicker (around the six month mark) and sometimes it will over-run the 18 month mark.

It is a matter of agency law. As far as I am aware, FOS has enjoyed some success in this - notably with some Alianz/M&S storecards.

No legally binding decision has been made on your case yet. The first assessment is informal - the letter you received should tell you this. Usually, the business will agree with this in which case the case is resolved. However if they reject the first assessment either by expressly saying so or by not bothering to reply at all, the only way of moving forward is to have an ombudsman make a final (binding) decision.

One would have to look at the facts - the facts in this case are that the OP was speeding. He was caught speeding using an approved device. The fact that the road name is slightly wrong does little to alter these facts. This is not the same as being able to prove you were on the A1 while and officer claims you were speeding on the M1. What were the circumstances of your case? I must say you were very lucky - I am tempted to assume that in some way the case hinged on the credibility of the officer.

I would have to disagree with that. I can't say why though.

Well, bit of an abuse if you fail to.

I see, that was careless. I am sure you will note the time allowance in future and won't make the same mistake.

Lucky you were not made to clear it up. What sort of "woopsie?"

Why was it issued?

A fair question I think. Theft and speeding are both criminal matters, so why is it that the police should be allowed to make mistakes in relation to speeding but would be expected to record accurate details about a theft? The answer to this centres around the Fixed Penalty Notice scheme. A FPN is an offer from the police to the accused which allows the matter to be dealt with without concerning the court. An FPN has nothing to do with the courts. If a person was to refuse to accept the FPN, the officer would then initiate court proceedings. The officer would draft a new statement concerning the offence which will probably be different to the limited information that is entered onto the FPN form - for example it would likely be drafted with the aid of any remarks recorded by the officer in his notebook. The FPN will be forgotten about - it would be as if it never existed. For that reason, it would be pointless to attempt to use flaws in the FPN to challenge the prosecution's case. However, if one takes issue with the offence itself (so if the OP was sure that he was not speeding) then along with other evidence, flaws in the FPN could be used to attempt to show that the officer's approach was unsatisfactory and their evidence may not be credible. This does not appear to be the case in this thread though.

Well done! They could have at least proof read the document though...

This still may not help matters. The original NIP could have been issued any time between the commission of the offence and a split second before the DVLA's database was updated.

I don't think that there is any get out. An NIP was issued, albeit to the registered keeper at the time. After this, the police have 6 months.

There are policies which state that the other car must be insured - such as Admirals for example: http://www.admiral.com/policyDocs/AD116%200311%20Policy%20Booklet.pdf (page 13) or Elephant: http://www.elephant.co.uk/policyDocs/el51_POLICYBOOK_PORTRAIT_0311.pdf (page 10). Even under the old law, it made sense for the other vehicle to be insured unless one was driving it from one location directly to another off road location. The idea of the scheme is to reduce the number of uninsured vehicles on the road. There was a problem with people having uninsured cars parked in their drives which would be used when the owner needed to make a trip to the local shops etc. Whether this scheme will make any massive impact remains to be seen. From what I have heard, warning letters will be sent out first, then a fine and then there will be an option to have the vehicle recovered.

Fantastic - it is quite a place and it is beautiful inside the buildings which make up the Inner Temple. Thanks for the reply.

Off topic - Inner Temple: is your username any reference to the honourable society?

Just refer him to CPR part 26 (in particular parts 26.6, 26.7 and 26.8) as well as part 31.1(2) which states that "This Part applies to all claims except a claim on the small claims track." Or you could give up now - this clown clearly does not have a clue what he is talking about.