Thank you

Hi guys, I have recently received a letter from Santander which I believe is a standard response i.e your complaint against SCUKL will be assessed under general legal principles (including time-bar) where as the FCA's dispute resolution "DISP" rules apply to your complaint against the insurer. Moreover, it goes on to say "for your complaint against the Insurer (but not your complaint against SCUKL), you can choose to go to: The Financial Ombudsman Service. My questions are 1) Why can't I go to the FOS to complain against SCUKL/Satander Cards UK Limited? 2) If Santander rejects my complaint, then will I have to say to the FOS; something along the lines of "My complaint is against AXA France IARD & AXA France VIE, but Santander ARE ACTING ON THEIR BEHALF"? 3) Can I get a SAR from AXA France IARD & AXA France VIE in relation to the PPI on my Currys/Dixons account? (Santander have already said there was ppi on my Currys/Dixons account. Moreover, I have already sent a SAR to Currys/Dixons Carphone but they are saying they don't have any info on this account, and I'm still awaiting SAR info from Santander. Therefore, Which company should I send the SAR to in order to get info on my account/PPI info? Thanks for reading and I hope someone can help.

Hi Dx, I don’t understand what you mean above. Please can you explain it without the acronyms and in simplified/clearer terms? Kind regards

Hi guys, I’ve got my mother’s Littlewoods statements (archive statements) via a SAR I can see there is a line called “BNPL ABC BAL” which is Buy Now Pay Later Agents Balance Care Balance I.e BNPL= Buy Now Pay Later. ABC=Agents Balance Care BAL=Balance. I’ve looked on some posts on this website and other sites, and it seems that “Agents Balance Care” was a kind of PPI. In my mother’s case, is BNPL ABC BAL a form of PPI? It varied each month from a few hundred, to £50 odd and then sometimes zero. Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated . Kind regards

Well, I hope so. Perhaps it’s just a news story to sell more papers/get more online readers.

What is 2 years old? Are you referring to the article? The article was written in October 2016 so it’s almost 3 years old. Please can you help me out with my questions? Thanks

Hi dx, yes i May be thinking too deeply, but what if it happened? Although she doesn’t remember signing anything (her memory is not the best) I’m pretty sure there would have been something to sign right? E.g letter for her to sign confirming she is happy/she agrees with the offer? After reading this article, I started to get a little worried: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3833245/Banks-snatching-PPI-payouts-ve-paid-25bn-years-mis-selling-say-mistakes.html

Hi dx, thanks for the reply. In regard to “statute of limitations”, it’s a 6-year rule then is it? In my situation, I’m helping my mother with her PPI complaints/enquires and she had around £10k back from a bank in 2012 (I didn’t help her with this at the time; it was via a simple call she made to the bank). However, she doesn’t remember what the PPI payout was for exactly (she thinks it was for loans) and doesn’t remember if she signed anything. However, with the 29th August 2019 deadline approaching, I decided to write to the same bank again and ask if PPI was sold (because she had a credit card with them, loans and she still banks with them I.e current account). They have written back and said they are looking into several items (I wouldn’t be surprised if they are the same ones as back in 2012). Initially, I was thinking this could be a win-win situation e.g they may pay more money (e.g they may have paid comparative redress instead of full redress), they may find additional PPI which was not located in 2012 e.g on her current account, credit card etc. However, Now, I’m starting to worry that they could say the 2012 payout was a miscalculation and that my mother needs to pay it back. My mother no longer has the money , so she couldn’t pay it back. What do you think? Am I looking into this too deeply? It’s definitely worrying me. Thanks

Hi guys, I’m not sure if this is correct but I’ve read somewhere that if a bank pays you twice in error (e.g double PPI payout ) or makes an incorrect payment (e.g an overpayment of PPI In error ), the bank has up to 6 years to get the money back. If it’s more than 6 years, then the bank can not get their money back. Is this correct? Kind regards

Hi stu007, thanks for your advice. By the way, I have heard of/read about people who have received bank statements going back to the early 90s via a SAR (and sometimes with the help of the ICO) I.e especially with the big banks such as RBS, Lloyds, HSBC, Barclays etc. Do you think by complaining to the ICO, the banks will take me more seriously and therefore “dig” a little deeper for the information I require. In my case, I would like bank statements from early 90s onwards, and still awaiting a response.

Hi guys, is it worth complaining to the ICO if the company doesn’t provide the info you have requested via a SAR e.g statements and agreements? Kind regards

Hi guys, does anyone know who was/were the underwriter(s) for Littlewoods/Shop Direct from 1999 to 2006? I understand that Aviva is the current underwriter, but not sure if they were before. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Kind regards

Hi dx, ah ok I see. Thanks again for the advice.

Hi dx, thanks for the info! So what period was PPI more common for Littlewoods then? According to the info received, it seems the account started in 1999 (it says “statement 1”) and ended some time in the mid/late 2000s (the latest statement they show is 2006 I.e “statement 92”, but I’m pretty sure my mother had it for a some years after this date). Kind regards

Hi guys, I’m hoping you can help me again. Here is the info: ShopDirect (Littlewoods) response to my complaint/enquiry: “Thank you for contacting us about the concerns that you Have with the sale of your PPI policy. According to our records, there is no evidence that PPI has ever been applied. Please find enclosed a selection of statements from different trading periods in your account history. The statements provided to evidence that no PPI has ever been applied to your account are in different formats due to system migration/and or the statement archiving process. If PPI had been applied to the account this would show as a 111G/111 adjustment or the name of the PPI product. If you dispute our findings please contact us highlighting any evidence to the contrary, quoting the reference number at the top of this letter. As our records indicate that you have not held a PPI product with us, we are unable to consider your concerns as a complaint” Ok, so here are my points I want to discuss: 1) the information they provided is pretty vague/unintelligible to be honest. It’s just a few screenshots of the Littlewoods account in different accounting periods. It shows transactions that were made for three different accounting periods I.e July 1999, December 2002 and July 2006. It also shows credit limits, commission information/comm. paid last tax year, arrears, sched paid, min paid, balance b/f and cf etc. I don’t believe this information is relevant to my original request I.e copy of the original agreement with Littlewoods. As I understand, when an organisation sends you SAR information , it should be presented in a way that is easy for the customer to understand. I have worked in accounts/finance before, but the information doesn’t really mean too much unless you work in the organisation yourself. So I’m obviously going to write back, as I’m not happy with what they have provided. I mean, how do I know that 111G/111 means that PPI was included? What do you think I should say in the reply? P.S this was my mother’s account and she was constantly using this account, spending £1000s over many years, so I really believe there’s a good chance she paid PPI. Kind regards