Sad news for this forum, hope everything is well and you know that you're going to be greatly missed around here. All the best.

Thanks for the quick reply Tomtom, why couldn't they just include that line in their letter, Council Tax Reduction is the new name for council tax benefit, I'm sure she's not the only granny thinking she's having her money reduced She should have a council tax bill which would show if she has to make any payments. yep, she had a bill a few weeks back, again she thought she was having her benefit reduced, something about a 'reduction award' if I remember correctly. Thanks for clearing it up

Hi Everyone, My mother has just received a 'Council Tax Reduction' letter, she's retired, in her Mid 70's, living alone, with no savings in a council house, and receiving Pension Credit Guarantee, Carers Allowance and Attendance Allowance. The wording of the letter goes.... You do not have to contact us because any council tax reduction entitlement has already been applied to your council tax account and you will have already received your bill with any reduction applied. She's under the impression that she's now around £20 worst off each week due to this 'Reduction' . So my question is, embarrassingly, what does a 'Council Tax Reduction' mean? I'm thinking that the 'Calculated Reduction per week' means she's having the tax covered, i.e 'reduced' by that amount - so basically she's receiving the same amount weekly. If that makes sense. Anyway, I'm not sure that the letter means what she thinks it does, and it's really not explained well (imho) just, go along to the citizen's advice if things aren't clear thanks in advance, Bob

any one know the correct phone number for Ernst and Young? Plan to phone FSCS this afternoon, see if they can help. I'd really like to know if there's a six month window between receiiving a 'final response' from London Scottish and taking the claim to FSCS? Deloitte's say they 'may not be able to help' if we don't contact them within this time, so it doesn't sound that final. but I tend to be wrong about things like that p.s. does anyone know of any threads/cases where London Scottish have paid out on a PPI claim?

Sorry Dx, I've been through 20 pages of threads about London Scottish and haven't found any where they've 'coughed'. The best advice was to phone the FSCS to ask wheather a claim could be brought against LS. I must have been looking in the wrong place. here's a section from LS letter which made me think I could no longer pursue anything against them... We write to advise you that following discussions between the Financial Service Compensation Scheme (FSCS) and London Scottish Finance it has been decided that all complaints that relate to PPI sold by LSF after the FSA introduction of the Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOB) rules on 14 January 2005 will be investigated by the FSCS. This decision has been taken because LSF is in administration and the FSCS has responsibility for dealing with complaints when a firm finds itself in administration and unable to meet its financial obligations concerning policies commencing after 14 January 2005. As your complaint is about insurance policies sold on xxx xxx and xxx xxx, this matter will be passed onto them for investigation, and should you require further information regarding this matter please contactthe FSCS directly at:..... I thought Deloittes were acting for the FSCS, not as a claims company - dumb i know, I really am confused. How can they state the above and still pay out? Really lost:| I've tried uploading the letter, both on here and in photobucket it doesn't seem to be my night

So basically, what I think I'm asking, is that London Scottish being in 'Administration' isn't a valid defense? and that I that should continue with the claim to LS and forget about the Deliottes form.

Thanks for that Dx, so you think I should go back to LS? Problem is, I've been really slack on this and the Six months that Deliottes have giving me to get back to them with this runs out on this saturday. I'm thinking I should upload the reply from LS that claims it's now a matter for Deliotte's and no longer a matter for them. Let you guys and girls have a look at it, cus I'm even more confused than usual how about if I sent a short letter to Deliottes asking them to clarify their role with this claim? Like are they acting as a CMC here ?

I've tried going direct to LS, even inclosed the spread sheet I had so much help with from here. But LS claims it's now on longer anything to do with with them, Are you suggesting they're being misleading?

Sorry dx, a CMC is a claims managment company correct? I thought the route I was taking it, the FSCS via Deloitte's was something very different. Maybe the only option I have because Scottish London are in 'Administration'. LS said they had to pass the case on to them because of the 'Admin' thing - LS are no longer responsible for PPI refunds. Are you sugggesting otherwise? SP, no reply from DLC since the letter was sent

Thanks Brig, I'll send recorded then The letter from London Scottish seemed to imply that as they're in 'Administration' the FSCS via Deloitte's was the only way to go. I'm now wondering if there's an alterative. If so, can anyone say what they are ? I've read a lot about reclaiming PPI on here, but as London Scottish has gone belly-up none of that seem to apply to this case.

would that include the threat of taking court action? 'cus it's for my elderly mother, and I'm really looking for the least stressful way to proceed. oh, and it's against London Scottish and they've gone into 'Administartion' - so I'm not sure if there is another way. Be interested to find out though !!! p.s. do I need to send this recorded? rather not spend the money unless I have to

Quick question: London Scottish has passed on the PPI claim onto Deloitte's to resolve. Deloitte's form states that: By signing section H if we pay compensation we will 'step into your shoes' and take over the rights to sue LS. So the question is, should we trust Deloitte's to try and get the refund or take a different course? thanks, bobby

Wow! as easy as that? Thanks ScarletPimpernel, I'll be sending it recorded delivery tomorrow, and double thanks for the quick reply:-)

UPDATE: Just like any good horror story this one has just come back from the dead. To summarize what has gone before (the story really gets started back in post 73). Back in Feb 2011, I found out that my mother was being chased by DLC for an old loan from London Scottish. She'd paid a HUGE amount off, and still owned more than the original amount borrowed. And taking advice from members of CAG, I sent off a CCA request. It turned out that she had in fact taken out over 14 loans from London Scottish (one following on from another) and a lot of these had a balance which was 'rolled over' onto the following loan. Some also had mis-sold PPI (my mother was a pensioner at the time) and with an interest rate on the PPI as high as 235%. Postggj pointed out (post 112) how can more than 50% of a loan be made up of PPI? With a lot of help from CAG members, P1 and Dx100, citizenB, and many others, I sent a SAR to London Scottish (ALL AGREEMENTS AND PPI INFO IN POST 105) I received only a part of the information requested, so I asked for the rest. In response I got (post 114) - what P1 called a 'stupid letter' (post 115) or to quote P1 more fully... “that has got to be one of the biggest heaps of tosh I've read on here for a long time.... They're trying to say that they have no statements.... so no records then? No history of any payments received on these accounts from doorstep collections? Then how the heck did they work out the amount to flog out to DLC? They've more or less admitted that they can't. It's very tempting to say that it was paid up a long time ago..... No records; no proof. You could have a field day with this one.... and they'd be very, very stupid to go anywhere near a court with it! Idiots!..” Anyway to cut to the chase, P1 wrote a magnificent letter back in post 127, asking for the SAR information for a third time, and their response this time was.....(post 141) ...(more or less saying) LS has a record of the payments but they weren't going to give them to us, if we disputed the balance they asked us to provide proof in the form of the payment card issued and then they'll check their records for us . (This was a doorstop collection). After this the thread went off on in a new direction, on how to reclaim PPI....... Soooooo the good news ( hopefully ) the FSCS is now looking into the PPI stuff, and hopefully we'll get a fair hearing.. The BAD news is we recently received this letter from DLC, the first one for 18 months! Saying that they believe our complaint with LS has been resolved, (I of course dis-agree) and that if DLC don't hear from us by next Wednesday they'll pass the matter back to their collection boys and girls. http://s1354.photobucket.com/albums/q685/bob_CAG/?action=view&current=26sept2012-retracted_zpsf961a0bf.jpg So my question is, does anyone have any advice on how best to reply to the above letter? I'm thinking of summarizing all three requests for SAR information, and the inconsistent replies from LS. Plus mentioning that because the agreements are interlinked, and have 'charges with interests already levied rolled over, with more interests, and added mis-sold PPI' etc ...And well, as P1 said, the figure upon assignment is an amalgamation of incorrect balances, etc... Then asking DLC to contact LS directly, and obtain the information requested so that we can all be clear on what the balance should be. I mean, DLC do have to prove that the balance when the loan was sold on was correct, correct? And it appears with this mess that's going to be an impossible task. Anyway, any and all advice, or suggestions, observations, comments, etc, would be most appreciated, Thanks in advance, Bob p.s. Some of the highlights of the story so far: post 84, post 85, post 87, post 88 post 94 P1 unlawful charges added? post 96 Dx100 thinks agreement maybe lawful post 97 P1 disagrees post 99 P1 believes the balance upon assignment is incorrect post 107 Dx100 believes if this went to court the Judge would JAIL them!!! post 112 postggj more than 50% of loan made up of PPI post 115 P1 no statements/ no records? Post 122 P1 PPI should invalidate the assignment to DLC Post 124 P1 “Stupid letter don't lose it” p.p.s sorry about the length but hopefully it'll help you all to understand what a mess this is

So basically, once I've got their reply for the PPI claim, I can add on their failure to provide a complete SAR and send both to the FOS. Therefore, the six months i have to send a complaint, can be from the time I receive their reply for the PPI claim, correct? I really didn't think of that. doh! thanks again , bob p.s. I just thought, the original reason for sending the SAR was to obtain info to help with the DCA, and not as attempt to reclaim the PPI. Should i make a complaint about the lack of info in the SAR, if only so that the DCA can't claim that i had the opportunity to make a complaint but did not? (this thread is really about stopping the DCA , it's just been side tracked recently by the PPI claim)