A win, a wait and a question

[MKPatrick]

First time poster.

 

I've read with interest the many threads on PPI reclaim I've seen here. I'd like to thank all the contributors for providing me with enough background to get my claims started.

 

THE WIN

 

I sent an FSA questionnaire claim to MBNA in January, regarding a credit card I had between 1996 - 2003. I didn't even request an SAR. They replied within three weeks saying they were upholding my claim and have now written to me offering me £3163 which fits in with my figures. I couldn't have done it without the information on these forums.

 

THE WAIT

 

At the same time I sent a claim to RBS regarding a credit card held between 1998 - 2005. Almost identical to the MBNA one, citing the same reasons (adequate employer cover, third party insurance held and use of the term "we strongly recommend you take this insurance" on the application form with no mention of costs except in the small print of a separate document).

They responded, rejecting my claim which prompted me to write to them highlighting the inadequacies of their explanation. They treated me with contempt, stating they hadn't received the letter until I gave them the name of the person who had signed for it, then miraculously finding it while I was on the phone. It made no difference, they sent a curt response along the lines of "go to the FOS, I dare you." They also told me that RBS had never had a decision overturned by the FOS .... we all know the truth of that.

I've sent all the details for the FOS and I guess I'm in for a long wait.

 

THE QUESTION

 

So, the third credit card I had was a Goldfish, between 1996 - 2005. I wrote to Barclaycard, who, after many letters requested more information, decided they didn't own the account. Yet they have now sent me a letter rejecting my claim and stating the usual reasons (it was optional, you ticked it etc). I had subsequently taken the matter up with Lloyds TSB who owned the Goldfish brand at the time I closed the account so now I'm confused.

 

Just who is liable for paying a claim should it be found in my favour? Is it the company that owned Goldfish when I closed the account or did all the liability go to Barclaycard? Can anyone help?

 

Many thanks in advance for any help anyone can offer

 

cheers

 

Paddy

[citizenB]

RBS are wrong, they have had many rejections overturned by the Ombudsman. Did they actually put that statement in a letter to you ?

 

I am not sure about Goldfish. I will flag your thread for the PPI experts

 

Well done with MBNA

[MKPatrick]

No, they never stated it in writing. It was part of a conversation I had with them. I'm fully aware that they are running at 98% of cases referred being found for the claimant and ensured they knew I was aware. The phone call was rapidly terminated. I have found them to be devious, dishonest, misleading and arrogant in their dealings with me over this. From what I've read on these forums, this is a lot of people's experience. Thanks for flagging me up.

[dx100uk]

I thought

 

goldfish were HFC then morgan stanley now bc

 

if you are being fobbed off with mere speculation

that their processes were foolproof

 

you'll find these useful.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?378821-LloydsTSB-Loan-PPi&p=4120422&highlight=ppi+success#post4120422

[ukaviator]

The business had been taken over, they would also take over all liabilities as well. You should still chase Barclays.Dont forget to mention the Limitation Act in your claim otherwise they will fob you off.

[MKPatrick]

Many thanks ukaviator. Barclays have already fobbed me off on this one saying it's not their responsibility when I sent in my original questionairre, directing me to Lloyds.Yet this week they have sent me a PPI refund rejection letter stating the ususal reasons for the rejection and quoting the Goldfish account number. They haven't sent any supporting documentation.I will SAR them and then take it to the FOS

[MKPatrick]

Just an update for you good folks.

 

The FOS have written to me upholding my claim against RBS!

 

This decision has taken them only about 6 - 8 weeks. I'm flabergasted.

 

They say my claim is clear cut and that RBS should settle with me immeidately unless they have some new information.

 

On a further note I sent an SAR to Barclaycard regarding Goldfish but they provided only information about my current Barclaycard.

 

From what I can see they have no data from my Goldfish account.

 

Any ideas on where I should go from here?

[allison6564]

WOW fab news and with me having a claim with the FOS against HSBC it gives me some hope that I won;t be waiting the 12 months plus I thought I might. Well done and let us know what happens with RBS the bully's!!!!

[citizenB]

Just an update for you good folks.

 

The FOS have written to me upholding my claim against RBS!

 

This decision has taken them only about 6 - 8 weeks. I'm flabergasted.

 

They say my claim is clear cut and that RBS should settle with me immeidately unless they have some new information.

 

On a further note I sent an SAR to Barclaycard regarding Goldfish but they provided only information about my current Barclaycard.

 

From what I can see they have no data from my Goldfish account.

 

Any ideas on where I should go from here?

 

It is quite likely that they do genuinely NOT have any data from the Goldfish time.

 

If you believe that you were paying PPI at that time then I guess they should be made to guestimate the value of the PPI from that period.

 

Interesting isn't it, that if they were litigating against you for an unpaid debt - they would very likely be able to find some information ?

[citizenB]

Excellent news regarding the RBS claim

[MKPatrick]

Excellent news regarding the RBS claim

 

Sadly today my hopes on RBS have taken a massive tumble.

 

 

The FOS have backtracked on their iniital upholding of the claim.

 

The basis, they tell me, is that RBS appealed.

 

What FOS are syaing now is that, just because I wasn't sure whether it was an online or postal application for the card, that draws my entire claim into doubt!

 

The FOS adjudicator, .........., told me that the person who initialy upheld my complaint had got it wrong.

 

I asked when I would get a letter outlining the full circumstances and was told that wasn't the procedure.

 

I would get a letter stating the decision was reversed and would then have 21 days to appeak it to an Ombudsman.

 

Mr ... made it quite clear that my claim would then go "to the back of the queue" and my impression was that he wanted me not to pursue the claim.

 

I am flabbergasted at the inconsistency displayed here.

 

How can two people working from the same set of guidelines come to diametrically opposed decisions.

 

I challenged .... that it was to do with the RBS and the inevitable sale of the bank back to the private sector

but he just made out the FOS are entirely independent.

(Yeah right - the levy on the banks makes them independent).

 

I will be requesting copies of all correspondence between RBS and FOS as I believe there is some chicanery here.

 

My cklaim was straightforward enough for an assessor to see it as compelling and request redress from RBS.

 

That the RBS can then appeal based on my inability to remember exactly how I applied for the card 16 years ago is ridiculous.

 

What is still the same is that they missold me thousands of pounds worth of PPI I neither needed or asked for.

 

I shall keep you posted.

Edited June 28, 2013 by MKPatrick

[dx100uk]

reject it

 

ask that it goes to the ombs themselves for a final decision.

 

dx

[Hortz]

Sadly today my hopes on RBS have taken a massive tumble.

 

 

The FOS have backtracked on their iniital upholding of the claim.

 

The basis, they tell me, is that RBS appealed.

 

What FOS are syaing now is that, just because I wasn't sure whether it was an online or postal application for the card, that draws my entire claim into doubt!

 

The FOS adjudicator, .........., told me that the person who initialy upheld my complaint had got it wrong.

 

I asked when I would get a letter outlining the full circumstances and was told that wasn't the procedure.

 

I would get a letter stating the decision was reversed and would then have 21 days to appeak it to an Ombudsman.

 

Mr ... made it quite clear that my claim would then go "to the back of the queue" and my impression was that he wanted me not to pursue the claim.

 

I am flabbergasted at the inconsistency displayed here.

 

How can two people working from the same set of guidelines come to diametrically opposed decisions.

 

I challenged .... that it was to do with the RBS and the inevitable sale of the bank back to the private sector

but he just made out the FOS are entirely independent.

(Yeah right - the levy on the banks makes them independent).

 

I will be requesting copies of all correspondence between RBS and FOS as I believe there is some chicanery here.

 

My cklaim was straightforward enough for an assessor to see it as compelling and request redress from RBS.

 

That the RBS can then appeal based on my inability to remember exactly how I applied for the card 16 years ago is ridiculous.

 

What is still the same is that they missold me thousands of pounds worth of PPI I neither needed or asked for.

 

I shall keep you posted.

 

This sounds like a very odd set of circumstances.

 

The first stage of the FOS process is usually that your case gets looked at by an adjudicator. Even this usually takes at least six months at the moment. You would then get a written assessment of the outcome that would state whether they recommend the complaint be upheld or not. I would call them and ask has an adjudicator actually made a decision in the case or not? If they have then you should be supplied with a copy of it setting out the reasons.

 

Once the adjudicator has made a decision then the parties can either accept it, or if either is still dissatisfied ask for it to be referred to an Ombudsman. This usually takes many more months and once an Ombudsman makes a decision it is final and the procedure has been exhausted. So if your case had been adjudicated and then overturned that would normally be final.

 

It sounds to me like they have probably appealed it and it is waiting for an Ombudsman to review it. But you need to clarify exactly what stage of the process it is at.

 

As regards the comment about the levy on the banks, this is something they are legally obliged to pay. It is not something they have control over and hence they cannot refuse to pay it in order to exert influence over FOS. Most of the big banks have an uphold rate substantially over 50% at FOS. The unfortunate fact is that someone has to pay for the FOS and if not the banks then the only option would probably be a "loser pays" system similar to the courts. Which would then be open to the criticism that it is unfair to complainants who can't afford to take on companies who have much deeper pockets.

[citizenB]

Just reject this decision and ask for it to be escalated to a proper ombudsman.

[MKPatrick]

This sounds like a very odd set of circumstances.

It sounds to me like they have probably appealed it and it is waiting for an Ombudsman to review it. But you need to clarify exactly what stage of the process it is at.

 

I made the initial complaint following a final decision by RBS back in Feb.

 

I got a "claim upheld" letter about aminth ago from FOS and they asked RBS to respond.

 

RBS have responded to FOS, though I'm not party to what they've said,

 

and an Adjudicator phoned me to tell me that he found the initial decisionby his FOS colleague flawed and was upholding RBS' side,

based on my initial lack of certainty as to the method by which I applied for the card 16 years ago.

 

All of this despite agreeing with me that due to the "we strongly reccomend you take this insurance" statement on the application form made it an advised sale

(for which there was zero follow up interaction).

 

The adjudicator told me I would get a letter, outlining this 180 degree turnaround,

and offering me 21 days to escalate it to an ombudsman (which I will).

 

My main concern was that the adjudicator stressed very hard that I would go to the back of the queue if I appealed.

 

He seemed intent on putting me off.

 

He also seemed unwilling to discuss the content of RBS' response and the basis of their appeal.