PPI and Court

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi Bill.

[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:

[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

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Of course I know our Maxie-girl.

You found her then Turbo.....:cheer2: cool

Welcome aboard honey. XXXXX

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi Di - sorry if I missed your post, matey. Nice to see you.

I'm not sure we'll see Maxie yet, as I believe she is having to take some time off right now. Be nice to see her when she can get back in, though.

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Hi Bill

That's okay.

Hope your well.

Will catch up with Maxie soon then XX

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Right just read a reply from the FOS on my mobile soon as i can get on the pc ill copy it here PF

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Here you go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr C
Thank you for your e-mail of 6 October sent to my colleague Deeg Ganatra.
I have noted your request for this matter to be addressed and responded to in detail by a departmental manager. I am Mr Ganatra's team manager. I have reviewed the file and discussed the case in depth with those colleagues who have previously worked on it, and I feel that my input at this stage would not add anything to that which you have already been told. The process adopted by this Service is such that an adjudicator should attempt to resolve any complaint brought by a dissatisfied consumer in an informal manner. If those attempts are unsuccessful, a case can be referred to an ombudsman who will make a binding decision on it. It is not for a team manager to become involved in the adjudication concerning the merits of a case.
Mr Ganatra has written to you on a number of occasions, and explained why the Co-op's redress calculations were in line with our guidance. Mr Ganatra has reviewed the offer from the Co-op, in conjunction with our calculation specialists, and he is entirely satisfied that this offer is in line with our guidelines. I would also like to explain that this Service generally does not involve itself with the exact calculations carried out by a business, as we tend to make directional awards rather than awards of specific monetary amounts, and we do not look to provide complainants with specific figures in relation to redress calculations. However, as you are aware, in this case, we asked the Co-op to make an exception, and to provide us with their calculations in advance of any acceptance by you. They did this, and they have been checked, as mentioned, by our specialists, and we are satisfied that the offer made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In light of my comments above, I would ask you complete the acceptance form attached to Mr Ganatra’s letter of 20 September 2010 in order to enable a swift resolution to your case. If you do not agree with his view and do not agree to signing the latest acceptance form (without caveats or other amendments) the complaint will be referred to one of our ombudsmen for a final decision. This will involve the ombudsman reviewing the entire file, and taking into account all the comments and information that have been provided during the course of the investigation. The ombudsman will reach his or her own conclusion, which may be different from our adjudicator's view. I have noted your request for extra time to allow the Co-op to provide you with information following your subject access request, and with that in mind, I would ask that you respond to us by 15 December 2010, although the sooner you are able to provide us with your response, the sooner we will be able to resolve this matter.
I look forward to your response on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Richard Slater

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

Right ill leave the above with you all, as I have to take my son to the collage for the open evening as he wants to see there music dept.

Ill be back around 8ish.

Take Care all

PF

[di30]

Re: PPI and Court

Hiya PF

So I take it they have given you extra time then?
Normally its a month isn't it?

Would be useful now if all your docs came though all in good time to get this sorted.

I am sure that's the same Richard dealing with one of mine.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

Right ill leave the above with you all, as I have to take my son to the collage for the open evening as he wants to see there music dept.

Ill be back around 8ish.

Take Care all

PF

Good luck to your son, hope all goes well, catch you later.

Di
X

[Turboman]

Re: PPI and Court

Here you go.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Mr C
Thank you for your e-mail of 6 October sent to my colleague Deeg Ganatra.
I have noted your request for this matter to be addressed and responded to in detail by a departmental manager. I am Mr Ganatra's team manager. I have reviewed the file and discussed the case in depth with those colleagues who have previously worked on it, and I feel that my input at this stage would not add anything to that which you have already been told. The process adopted by this Service is such that an adjudicator should attempt to resolve any complaint brought by a dissatisfied consumer in an informal manner. If those attempts are unsuccessful, a case can be referred to an ombudsman who will make a binding decision on it. It is not for a team manager to become involved in the adjudication concerning the merits of a case.
Mr Ganatra has written to you on a number of occasions, and explained why the Co-op's redress calculations were in line with our guidance. Mr Ganatra has reviewed the offer from the Co-op, in conjunction with our calculation specialists, and he is entirely satisfied that this offer is in line with our guidelines. I would also like to explain that this Service generally does not involve itself with the exact calculations carried out by a business, as we tend to make directional awards rather than awards of specific monetary amounts, and we do not look to provide complainants with specific figures in relation to redress calculations. However, as you are aware, in this case, we asked the Co-op to make an exception, and to provide us with their calculations in advance of any acceptance by you. They did this, and they have been checked, as mentioned, by our specialists, and we are satisfied that the offer made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
In light of my comments above, I would ask you complete the acceptance form attached to Mr Ganatra’s letter of 20 September 2010 in order to enable a swift resolution to your case. If you do not agree with his view and do not agree to signing the latest acceptance form (without caveats or other amendments) the complaint will be referred to one of our ombudsmen for a final decision. This will involve the ombudsman reviewing the entire file, and taking into account all the comments and information that have been provided during the course of the investigation. The ombudsman will reach his or her own conclusion, which may be different from our adjudicator's view. I have noted your request for extra time to allow the Co-op to provide you with information following your subject access request, and with that in mind, I would ask that you respond to us by 15 December 2010, although the sooner you are able to provide us with your response, the sooner we will be able to resolve this matter.
I look forward to your response on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Richard Slater

Usual FOS whitewash--Bill--I presume we just wait for the statements--then ask the Ombudsman to review it--but not yet!!!

Mr Ganatra has written to you on a number of occasions, and explained why the Co-op's redress calculations were in line with our guidance

.

PF is there anything re above you have not posted on here?

Turbo

[middenmess]

Re: PPI and Court

However, as you are aware, in this case, we asked the Co-op to make an exception, and to provide us with their calculations in advance of any acceptance by you. They did this, and they have been checked, as mentioned, by our specialists, and we are satisfied that the offer made is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Read more at: PPI and Court - Page 15 - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

So no reason why they can't also supply you with them for LB's own ''calculation specialists''

[marshallka]

Re: PPI and Court

I think it will get resolved once and for all when the settlement statements come through but as regards the old loan if co-op say they have not got records it will probably be where FOS agree and you have to either accept the offer of the repayments (which is more than I got) unless you can find details yourself PF or take it to court in which case the FOS will not get involved anymore and its a risk. No-one can force records on closed loans of that age.

We do know that Co-op have calculated some figures correctly but there are a few rebates missing for some of the loans (3 loans I think!!) - Loan 1, Loan 2 and Loan 4??? WIthout these figures its difficult to come to a precise conclusion. Hopefully all 3 will turn up OR at least two.

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI and Court

As MM has spotted (well done !!!) the Co-Op appear to have supplied the FOS with their calcs, but not you, PF. If they have not done this, then they have not complied with the FOS guideline that says they should have done. Therefore the offer is unacceptable - even in principle - and the Team Manager should be told this IMO. I think this letter may prove quite useful, as we have a handle on teasing some of the bits of info we want out of the FOS, now.

But yeah, let's ask the Co-Op why they haven't supplied PF with the calculations which they appear to have supplied the FOS with - and demand that they now do so.

They also appear to have admitted that the adjudication team do NOT check the calculations themselves, which is what we wanted from the earlier letter from 'The Management.' That's a result, I reckon.

As Marshy says, we just have to wait for the DSAR results now, but we have an extension, so we can keep prodding the FOS and the Co-Op. Can you get that email backed up as a signed letter, PF, as in hard copy, with a signature ?

[pompeyfaith]

Re: PPI and Court

PF is there anything re above you have not posted on here?

Nope everything is posted up.

PF