Beachy v Barclaycard/Mercers take 2

[pompeyfaith]

WOW fantastic beachy great piece of news for a friday WELL DONE and yes perserverence does pay send Alanalana a wee message and im sure he will gladly mark this thread as WON PF

[dx100uk]

Greetings Beachy,

 

As promised the FSA report I mentioned early this morning is below:

 

CP09/23: The assessment and redress of payment protection insurance complaints

 

Regards

 

PF

 

sorry to hi-jack

 

i'm in the light of this PDF, it states nothing [as far as i can see] on their view about the issue of refunding PPI on A/C's pre 2005 whereby i already had full loss of earnings cover through the gov't [education sector employment] sickness scheme and them [hfc] making me take out their PPI.

 

thoughts?

 

dx

[MandM]

how is this one going

 

Mrs m

[beachcomber60]

how is this one going

 

Mrs m

 

 

Hi Mrs M,

 

One card settled & one to go :-

Edited May 20, 2010 by beachcomber60

[beachcomber60]

Long long time since posting.

 

After a long struggle Barclaycard finally caved in & refunded ppi premiums + interest which wiped the balance on the card.

 

However, while the FOS were investigating BC added £72 in over limit/late payment charges, I have now written to BC demanding this back - received a response 'sorry you have complained blah blah blah, we cant give you a response but will do by 18th December, just received another letter 'still cant give you a response but will try to by the 18th January' grrrrr

 

Incidently, they never did provide a copy of my agreement & all the time it was in dispute & with the FOS they were hammering me with interest - as they werent supposed to be doing this according to OFT guidelines is this reclaimable?

 

Also just before they terminated the account (card facilities already withdrawn) they hit me with a debit of £340 I havent got a clue what this was for & they refuse to tell me.

[noomill060]

FOS have changed their mind in my case too.

 

Sharkleycard originally offered under £200 for PPI going back 10 years plus, two days ago they phoned to tell me that the offer is now about £1000...

 

Methinks FOS have changed their policy.

[beachcomber60]

FOS have changed their mind in my case too.

 

Sharkleycard originally offered under £200 for PPI going back 10 years plus, two days ago they phoned to tell me that the offer is now about £1000...

 

Methinks FOS have changed their policy.

 

Hi noomill060,

 

Good to hear from you again.

 

Have to be honest I was surprised with Sharkleycard.

 

My initial claim was for about £4,000 but all they offered was £1,400 quoting 6 year Limitation Act.

 

Went to the FOS and although it took over 12 months found in my favour & Sharkleys refunded entire premiums paid + interest from when the account was opened early 1990's (just over £8,300).

 

Beachy

[noomill060]

My complaint has been with the FOS for over 3 years now!

[slick132]

Hi Beachy,

 

Sounds like a great result in the end, even though it took a long time coming.

 

If you have the statement data for the £72 in penalties, they will refund this, possibly without court action. If you take court action, you can add interest although the effect of this will be relatively small as the charges are recent.

 

If you don't know what the £340 debit is for, send a SAR so you can check if it's valid or not.

 

As regards the interest that was added to the a/c, you will have difficulty persuading BC or the FOS that the a/c was, in fact, in dispute. Clarification about this has been given by HHJ Waksman in his ruling on the Carey case.

 

Your a/c will not be deemed to have been in a recognisable dispute and BC were therefore able to continue to add interest.

 

8-)

[beachcomber60]

Hi Beachy,

 

Sounds like a great result in the end, even though it took a long time coming.

 

If you have the statement data for the £72 in penalties, they will refund this, possibly without court action. If you take court action, you can add interest although the effect of this will be relatively small as the charges are recent.

 

If you don't know what the £340 debit is for, send a SAR so you can check if it's valid or not.

 

As regards the interest that was added to the a/c, you will have difficulty persuading BC or the FOS that the a/c was, in fact, in dispute. Clarification about this has been given by HHJ Waksman in his ruling on the Carey case.

 

Your a/c will not be deemed to have been in a recognisable dispute and BC were therefore able to continue to add interest.

 

8-)

 

Hi Slick,

 

Been along time since our last contact, hope all is well.

 

Thought that would be the case regarding the interest - thought I'd double check, would have been nice if it was possible due to Mercers & Calders making life hell for the family with non stop phone calls & threats of doorstep collectors, still all over now, account paid off & closed, balance paid to me & although DN issued no adverse data filed with the CRA's.

 

I have SAR for the data for the last 12 months of the ppi complaint & they have had the 40 days to comply but all I've had is the same letters as the charges i.e. Cant give a response hope to do so in a months time & just received the second one 'hope to respond mid January'.

 

One massive debt gone forever

 

Merry Christmas

 

Beachy

[slick132]

Merry Christmas to you and your family.

 

Chase up re the SAR when the silly season is over. At least you know you'll get back any penalties and PPI that show up in the response.

 

The question, however, is how easily they'll repay !

 

8-)

[noomill060]

Just before xmas I was contacted by FOS. Sharkleys now want to give me PPI premiums + contractual interest to date, as per FOS guidelines.

 

(They did this months ago too, but just PPI premiums and interest to date of cancelation- long long ago)

 

Received standard letter from FOS with examples of FOS general approach, however they now state specifically that redress should include interest paid by consumer due to mis-sold PPI.

 

The passage below has been added since my tussle with the FOS last summer

 

 

"the financial busines should assume the customer would have made the same payments to their card account each month even if the PPI premium had not been added. The account reconstruction must therefore include removing any interest and charges that would not have applied if these payments had reduced the balance by more because no premium was added"

 

A bit wordy and not very elegant, but its a definate statement that PPI redress should include interest unlawfully applied to mis-sold PPI.

[emmaf01]

So pleased to read about your (long overdue) success, Beachcomber. Glad you have one of them off your back. Doesn't exactly make up for all the hassle though.

 

Emma

[beachcomber60]

Well really don't know what to make of this - should I be concerned that they may want a refund?

 

After all this time & out of the blue Barclays have sent me a letter stating that they have reopened my ppi claim :-

 

'Since we first started investigating PPI claims we have refined our current policies and processes. As part of or on-going commitment to serve our customers we have reviewed claims that we originally defended and as part of this review we have re-opened your claim.

 

We have re-opened your claim as we feel that a full review of all the evidence could result potentially result in a different outcome'.

 

Letter goes on to state what documents they now require (most of which have been shredded after winning & receiving the settlement), together with an in depth questionnaire.

 

I received a very acceptable settlement from them via the FOS, cant see any point of reopening the claim (unless they feel they paid out too much )

[the_shadow]

 

I received a very acceptable settlement from them via the FOS, cant see any point of reopening the claim (unless they feel they paid out too much )

 

If the settlement was in conjunction with the FOS then I would have "thought" it cast iron.

 

S.

[slick132]

Hi Beachy,

 

If you were happy with the refund received from them, just ignore this.

 

I doubt they will pay you any more, nor are they likely to want any back. I suspect they're just following their "current policy" to make sure they haven't turned down a claim they might now consider paying.

 

[noomill060]

I wonder what happened.