PPI and Court

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Sorry folks for flooding this thread (forum ) with my mates--sent for MaxieGirl who some of you will know

Turbo

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

Anyway, lets forget about figures in this thread now until the Co-op produce the statements for the DSAR---the thread can then be about discussion re FOS conduct/responsibilities etc until then--where my mate Bill will no doubt subject us to his full oratory

--we'll still keep going by E-Mail of course with our figures & keep Bill in the loop.


Turbo

I agree Turbo - like I said, you and Marshy have done brilliantly, and we now seem to have a skeleton of spreadies ready for the DSAR results - hopefully with the actual figures and dates. The ball-park figures you have so carefully and cleverly arrived at certainly seem to show that PF was right to reject the offer(s).

Interesting posts about the nature of goodwill payments, I thought. It occurs to me that, where a lender has mis-sold PPI or unlawfully charged penalties, then they should NOT be allowed to dictate the nature of their settlement offer, thus forcing the claimant to accept it without questioning it. I would like to see some pressure put on the lenders and the FOS et al to allow claimants to decide whether an offer made is acceptable as a GOGW. To me, GOGW status should be an option extended to the wronged party - and NOT a restriction imposed.

Considering the tax implications illustrated by Marshy, accepting the GOGW option may be advantageous to some, whereas refusing that option may be better for others. For example, in PF's case, it would appear that there is no tax advantage for him in accepting GOGW status, so he should IMHO be able to reject that, and insist that the offer is an offer of redress - and thus subject to further scrutiny and adjustment if necessary.

Regarding this question as to whether we should expect the FOS to check the calculations, I would suggest a couple of things, if I may:-

1. We continually insist that just providing a few total figures, then adding them up, is NOT an explanation of how they were calculated - as demanded by FOS. As such, any offer without detailed calcs is NOT in compliance with the FOS guidelines. As Wendy has said - in different words - it is unreasonable to expect a claimant to make an informed decision as to whether an offer is acceptable if they are not provided with an intelligible and complete explanation of how the offer is calculated. Additionally, it is therefore impossible for the FOS to check the calculations either !!! I personally think this is something we need to repeat every time the lender or the FOS asks for a 'blind' acceptance - where even the total figure is not given. It is a simple matter to provide a figure - as at a particular date - and a rate at which the offer increases daily (due to 8% interest). We can do it with our spreadies here.
2. We keep pressing them to make it clear as to whether or not they do check the calculations - and if they do, then to what extent ?

Doing the above with every new claim we submit will eventually get a result of some sort, I'm sure - even if it's not the result we want !!! :lalala:

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi Bill.

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Marshy--see Chatbox-lol

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

I agree Bill - Marshallka's posting of those FOS letter exerpts is most useful...........thanks Marshallka

Sorry, off topic I know as not Co-op related, but regarding a v.old LTSB PPI for which I only have start/end dates (full 7 year term paid!) - this probably indicates that FOS will be unable to help............

It would depend on if the firm actually has got records or indeed yourself like I did.

FOS could and most probably look into a "bank" complaint regardless of age as before the FOS came about in 2001 there was the old Banking Ombudsman Scheme which had rules, much the same as FOS on things like this.

It would though depend on records.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

marshallka thanks for that and both offers i have had mention tax although i am under the impression tax will not apply to me as i am on IB and DLA and thus under the tax free allowance

[nelliewops]

Re: PPI and Court

...and thanks for posting up those letters, Marshy. It gives us some idea as to what is and isn't sufficient to get the FOS to uphold a claim.

I agree Bill - Marshallka's posting of those FOS letter exerpts is most useful...........thanks Marshallka

Sorry, off topic I know as not Co-op related, but regarding a v.old LTSB PPI for which I only have start/end dates (full 7 year term paid!) - this probably indicates that FOS will be unable to help............

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

indeed and no doubt why they all want to jump on the goodwill bandwagon rich in many cases would you not say

But goodwill then can make the redress tax free

ex gratia payments of compensation and tax (depends how you interpret it!!!)

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/bulletins/tb72.htm

Ex-gratia or voluntary payment: It is sometimes suggested that an interest addition is not taxable because it, or the compensation on which it is calculated, is paid “ex-gratia” or voluntarily. We accept that a truly voluntary payment cannot be interest, even if described as such, because the essential feature of an entitlement to it is absent. In practice, however, we consider it will be extremely rare for any payment arising from claims that a financial product has been mis-sold to be truly voluntary, since the redress is given in consideration of the complainant giving up a right of action.

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

indeed and no doubt why they all want to jump on the goodwill bandwagon rich in many cases would you not say

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

bill,

Thank you your words do not go amiss on this thread and i agree that the word "goodwill"is over used and in many cases wrongly used not only by the co-op but by the financial industry as a whole

I was told by FOS that when a firm redress's by Goodwill it does not go against the firm in the complaints data.

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

Come to think of it Bill--in a lot of our Firstplus involvement--they often state that (after a first complaint about a measly PPI refund) that they have now upped it to 78% in the hope that the customer will be satisfied

But even then it is only 78% of the Premium and not the premium and the interest charged on it. This is actually paid back by the insurer and not the lender. ANY unfair rebate complaints (but first you have prove your rebate was unfair) are dealt with by the insurer.

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

Thanks, Turbo. Dammit, that letter is from the Service Review Team at the FOS, so all it is saying is that the Team itself doesn't check the calculations - they simply check procedures. I think we need to try and get the FOS Adjudication Team to clearly state exactly how far they go into the calculations. Maybe the email above could elicit an answer. Just maybe.......?

I missed the earlier FP comments about 78%, so well recalled. I wonder where they get the 78% from, now ? Maybe it's just a convenient figure which they can refer to as their own Rule of 78, and lead us into thinking it's the same thing.

A pro rata rebate is a rebate/refund that is acceptable by the FSA being 78% of the unused PPI and 22% is seen as acceptable as being kept for admin etc.

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Marshy

I know you are worrying that they will suddenly claim a refund was given--but as we know--they have also got to acknowledge a Settlement figure was paid also.

It will still be more than PF's offer anyway ,as you know , the refund will be substantially less than the Settlement Figure therefore the projected refund in our letter would only slightly be reduced.

Anyway, lets forget about figures in this thread now until the Co-op produce the statements for the DSAR---the thread can then be about discussion re FOS conduct/responsibilities etc until then--where my mate Bill will no doubt subject us to his full oratory

--we'll still keep going by E-Mail of course with our figures & keep Bill in the loop.


Turbo

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

...and thanks for posting up those letters, Marshy. It gives us some idea as to what is and isn't sufficient to get the FOS to uphold a claim.

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

Thanks, Turbo. Dammit, that letter is from the Service Review Team at the FOS, so all it is saying is that the Team itself doesn't check the calculations - they simply check procedures. I think we need to try and get the FOS Adjudication Team to clearly state exactly how far they go into the calculations. Maybe the email above could elicit an answer. Just maybe.......?

I missed the earlier FP comments about 78%, so well recalled. I wonder where they get the 78% from, now ? Maybe it's just a convenient figure which they can refer to as their own Rule of 78, and lead us into thinking it's the same thing.