PPI and Court

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Final Draft:

Mr Richard Slater
Team Manager
Financial Ombudsman Service
South Quay Plaza
183 Marsh Wall
London
E14 9SR

Complaint about “The Co-operative Bank PLC”

Your Ref 8249425/DG/P201


Dear Mr Slater,

Thank you for your response to my recent email, and for looking into my request for a more detailed scrutiny. I appreciate the time and trouble you appear to have taken in doing this. Thank you also for allowing further time with my response. I have been taking advice from my own team of helpers, who have found your response most helpful, in fact. I would be obliged if you could kindly send me a written 'hard copy' version of your response, as I feel my team and I may need this at some future stage.

I note that you confirm that the FOS does not involve itself with the exact calculations of PPI reclaims, and yet the FOS appears to give the impression to claimants that it has done this, thus often encouraging claimants to accept offers which have not actually been checked for accuracy. I would like to suggest, if I may, that the FOS makes it clear that the calculations have not been checked when it suggests that an offer is acceptable.

Although you confirm that the Co-Op have provided the FOS with their calculations, they have NOT provided me - the original claimant - with any. All I have been given is a set of totals and sub-totals, with no details of any calculations whatsoever. Would you please, therefore, be kind enough to send me a copy of the calculations provided to you by the Co-Op, or direct that the Co-Op sends me a copy of them? I would like to point out that it is the opinion of myself and my team that, until such calculations are provided to the claimant, the offer made should NOT be considered acceptable by the FOS, as the FOS guidelines state that such calculations should be provided as part of the settlement of a claim.

I also feel I should make you aware that there is much concern among PPI mis-selling claimants over the insistence that they sign an acceptance, without caveats or other amendments, and without knowing exactly what they are being instructed to accept. I and my colleagues consider it a ridiculous state of affairs where claimants are being assured by the FOS that what is offered to them is fair and reasonable, and are then instructed to accept the offer without having been told what it is, or how it is calculated - when the FOS has not even checked the figures, itself. I am sure you will understand our concern over this, and I suggest that the FOS reconsiders this aspect of the way it deals with these claims.

I look forward to receiving details of the Co-Op's calculations from whichever source is appropriate, and now await the data I have requested from the Co-Op. Many thanks again for your time and attention.



Yours sincerely,

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Turboman,

Thank you thats a 5-0 then all agreed will get that in the post first thing in the morning.

PF
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
And ill email it to him now.

PF

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Was meant to post on this earlier.............read the letter Bill, superb, good one!

I know the one's he helped me with in the past have helped too, cheers Bill and of course your input as well Turbo, thank you.

So I know this letter will be a great help for PF, good luck PF.

oops all in bold, was not intentional on my post lol.

You all done a fab job, you too Marshallka X

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi PF

Yes I agree with you & Marshy---excellent letter from Bill

Perseverance & a nagging slow presure
rather than threats & confrontation

Just to remind everybody -

There are 2 issues going on here simultaneously :

1---the disagreement with the FOS who say that they will not show us THEIR sums--which is what the last set of posts are about

2--The more important--- DSAR sent to CO-op to flush out the Loan Statements once & for all that PF did't get from his DSAR in 2008 so we can check everything & probably submit new evidence to be considered to the Ombudsman himself who will then have to reconsider the case--rather than the existing adjudicators

Turbo

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

LOL, its that feeling I have and it would not at all surprise me, makes me think why we received these extra payouts last weekend.........(out the way)!

[nelliewops]

Re: PPI and Court

My hunch.........that would be Lloyds TSB, but I would say that LOL !!

I'm with you on that one Di

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

My hunch.........that would be Lloyds TSB, but I would say that LOL !!

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

FOS has assured claimants that claims will continue, this i guess is because it is only a review of the rules set by the FSA and not a court case as was the bank charges.

Indeed it does not take away the fact that many people where ripped off.

PF

[NLP]

Re: PPI and Court

some people on other fourms saying one bank has already put a freeze on all complaints

this is a set up

just like the OFT set up bank charges for the banks... the FSA have set them up for the banks

nobody will do anything though, that is a fact.

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Also.....

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/consumer...es/index.shtml


PPI changes challenged: Can you still complain?





If you have insurance to cover your loan or debt repayments in the event of accident, sickness, reduced income or loss of employment, you can still complain about how the policy was sold to you or the response you received after making a claim. Find out how.

If you have taken out a loan, mortgage or credit card, you may have been sold payment protection insurance (PPI) to cover the repayments if you are unable to meet them in certain circumstances.
These policies can also be called loan protection, credit protection, or accident, sickness and unemployment insurance.
It may have been suggested to you that you needed PPI to be approved for a loan or credit, or even had a policy added to the amount of your loan without your knowledge, increasing the balance you have to repay.
Consumer protection challenged

We took over the regulation of insurance sales in 2005, and since then have found evidence of widespread problems with the sale of PPI and how complaints are handled.
To ensure customers are treated more fairly when complaining about the sale of a PPI policy or after making a claim, we announced a package of measures for firms to follow by 1 December 2010.
These measures include:

• ensuring firms handle complaints properly and offer redress where appropriate;
• explaining when and why firms should review past complaints to identify if there are serious flaws in sales practices that may have affected customers who bought PPI; and
• setting out common sales failings to help firms identify bad practice.

What’s happened now

The banking industry, through trade association the British Bankers' Association (BBA), started legal proceedings on 8 October 2010 to challenge our ability to insist on these measures.
We intend to contest this challenge as we consider the measures to be a fair solution for consumers and the industry.
What to do if you have a complaint

Despite the challenge by the BBA, you still have the right to complain about your PPI policy.
If you have a complaint about the circumstances of the sale of your PPI policy or the suitability of the product for you, you should first complain to the firm that sold it to you.
If your complaint is about a claim you have made, you should raise the matter with the insurance firm.
You are more likely to get a prompt response if you follow the firm’s complaints procedure – you can check online or call to confirm how they prefer you to proceed.
The firm then has eight weeks to look into your complaint and provide a response.

If you are not happy with how the firm has dealt with your complaint you can take it to the Financial Ombudsman Service as soon as possible and within six months of receiving a response. The ombudsman service is a free, independent service for settling disputes between financial services firms and their customers.
The ombudsman service has a template to register a complaint about PPI which you can send to the firm that sold you the policy.
Find out more about what to do if you have a dispute or complaint.
Fairness failings

We have taken action against 24 firms for failings in PPI sales since 2005, with fines totalling nearly £13m. We also stopped the sale of single premium PPI with unsecured personal loans so consumers won’t pay upfront for several years of protection.
The quality of complaints handling is another area of PPI we have focused on.
In the past five years there have been over a million complaints made about PPI. Firms on average reject around half the PPI complaints they receive, but some reject nearly all the complaints, according to figures we received from 18 major sellers of PPI.
Nearly one-third of rejected complainants go to the ombudsman service, where more than 80% are overturned in the consumer’s favour.

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Be back after Paul O'Grady PF & read up last page of posts

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

Banks fight PPI compensation rules
(UKPA) – 1 hour ago The press association

Banks have announced plans to challenge through the courts new rules on the way they must handle complaints about controversial payment protection insurance.
The British Bankers' Association (BBA) is asking the High Court to carry out a judicial review of the Financial Services Authority's rules on the handling of PPI complaints, which are due to come into force at the end of this year.
The rules include new guidance on the way firms must handle complaints and pay compensation to customers who think they were mis-sold PPI.
It also sets out details on when companies must review previous complaints to see if there were serious flaws in their sales practices that may have affected both customers who did complain and those who did not.
The BBA has not given details on what aspect of the new rules it wants reviewed, but it is believed to be challenging the FSA's decision to impose the new guidance retrospectively on sales that took place before it was introduced.
PPI covers debt repayments if the holder is unable to work due to an accident or illness or if they are made redundant.
But it has come in for heavy criticism after research found it had been mis-sold to many consumers who would never be able to claim on it, while others felt pressurised into taking it out alongside a loan or credit card.
In the last five years there have been more than a million complaints made to firms about PPI. The product currently accounts for around a third of all the complaints the Financial Ombudsman Service receives, with nine out of 10 complaints upheld in consumers' favour.
The FSA said it will contest the review, adding that firms would have to continue handling complaints on the issue while the process is taking place.
Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of consumer group Which?, said: "It makes you wonder what planet the banks are living on. Not content with the billions they have made from this over-priced, flawed and frequently mis-sold product, the banks now seem to be trying to wriggle out of implementing changes that would ensure consumers are treated fairly."

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

So that's a 3-1 just wait for turboman and if I get a 4-0 it will be in post in the morning.

PF

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

Further to Richard Slater's email (post #353) - might I suggest that you email this AND send it by snail-mail, PF ?

...or summat along these lines, anyway...

any use ?

Bill, that sounds excellent and will (should!!) give them food for thought. Well done!!!!

[nelliewops]

Re: PPI and Court

I for one (and I'm sure I won't be alone) will be calling the FOS first thing on Monday to ask how this affects ongoing cases - and specifically ones which are legally binding like mine with Norton............previously my adjudicator had said to me that if the judicial review happened, it wouldn't affect complaints that were in the pipeline/subject to an ombudsman's decision - but who knows........