FOS and PPI

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

This practice of getting claimants to accept an offer in full and final settlement - without actually having been made a quantifiable offer of any redress has always seemed strange to me. Sinister, even.

I believe the FOS stance on this has been that the claimant is agreeing that - PROVIDED that the [as yet undisclosed] offer has been calculated in accordance with the FOS guidelines, then the claimant WILL accept it in full and final settlement. Essentially, this is the FOS insisting that the claimant 'ticks a box' which says "I have every faith in the FSA/FOS's ability to uphold my right to fair compensation for having been mis-sold PPI by a bunch of con-men, and to ensure that I receive full redress. I have also read - and understood - ALL the small print available, and I am happy to put my trust in the provider of such protection - YET AGAIN."

FFS - THAT in itself is mis-selling, isn't it ? How many PPI claims are turned down because the mis-seller originally played the VERY same trick ? Just today, a family member I am assisting received a copy of a credit card application (cum CCA agreement...?) which showed they ticked the box that said "I want PPI on this, and I have read and understood ALL the small print available."

IMHO, he was still mis-sold it, and a ticked box or a signature does NOT prove that mis-selling didn't take place. Where misrepresentation and concealment have been employed in order to elicit that consent, then I do NOT consider it to be properly and lawfully "informed consent." Doesn't PPI come within the Sale of Goods Act ? I'm not too clear on this.

So, this - to me - this idea of getting peeps to sign a "blind" agreement is like a Ford Escort Ghia. It's oxymoral - a contradiction in terms, whatevva, Trevor. It should have been scrapped at birth, I reckon. This just CANNOT stand as a binding agreement. A blindfold, or a gun to the head.....either way, such an agreement is NOT made with proper and informed consent, IMO.

FURTHER TO THIS somewhat long-winded diatribe - I have had the FOS tell me that they do NOT involve themselves in individual claim calculations.

So be it, then. We thus need to get the FOS to ENSURE that the trust we have been forced to put in them is NOT misplaced (as it was with the PPI mis-seller), and that Egg, amongst others, ARE playing by the FSA/FOS rules. Anything less is blatant abdication of responsibility, IMHO.

[enaid]

Re: FOS and PPI

Here is a short list of case studies as examples of how the FOS come to their decisions on either to uphold claims or not.

payment protection insurance (PPI) case studies


On the upheld claims this is what the FOS state in their final paragraph.

"We told the financial business to put the claimant in the position she would have been in, if she had not been advised to take out the policy"

Now to me this is clear enough and I am far from the sharpest knife in the box by a long way.

Where upfront PPI was placed on a loan it can't be too challenging I am sure to work out.

Credit Cards a little tougher and for the example on there it states.

We told the financial business to put the claimant in the position he would have been in, if he had not taken out the policy, by reconstructing his credit card account.

Going off that the rules are very clear and if the settlement they offer does not in fact do as stated then it must be looked at again.

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

I have recently been learning - from the likes of EXC - that the rules themselves are not actually that clear, Enaid. Very wordy and seemingly comprehensive - but they are often quite ambiguous. I would agree that the PRINCIPLE is simple and clear enough - to 'put the claimant back in the position they would have been if they had not bought the PPI.' But the rules allow that principle to be side-stepped all too often, and both the FOS and the banks appear to be doing this.

If anything, the rules sometimes appear to be no more than a tool that has been fashioned to enable that very principle to be ignored. Like a chocolate teapot - nice to look at and lovely to eat - but completely unfit for purpose.

[enaid]

Re: FOS and PPI

This factsheet for consumers is only a general guide. It is not legal advice. The rules we have to follow can be complex. We look at each case on its own individual facts and merits. We will always give you the chance to query anything you don't understand or agree with.


Well the rules should be made clearer for all, it's as simple as that.
The whole sorry mess with the financial industry both personal and business is caused by COMPLEXITY and the sheer lack of transparency. On hindsight we now know this was to enable the financial institutes to rip us off.
So can we get a peep at these so called complex rules?

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

I agree, Enaid. I can see the need for a more complex framework of rules to support the principles. But when their complexity outweighs their effectiveness, there must be something wrong. So many words - but so many loose ends, still. Unfit for purpose - but the best we have got, I guess. So I suppose we have to make the best use we can of them.

Here's a bunch of 'em:-

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Zooming in to the subject of redress:-

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Zooming in to dispute resolution:-

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Zooming in to PPI dispute resolution:-

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Zooming in to PPI redress:-

FSA Handbook - Full Handbook

Finally...we look at Disp/App/3.7.2:-

Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract.

Lo and behold !!! There is our PRINCIPLE. Watered down by so many options for "The Firm" to avoid sticking to it, it hardly resembles the openly publicised principle, does it ?

"Where the firm concludes..."
"...and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress..."
"...or other appropriate redress..."
"the firm should, as far as practicable..."

I wouldn't mind if all those extra words did the job of tying up loose ends, but they don't - they just throw extra spanners into the works, by giving "The Firm" too much leeway, IMO. It's almost apologetic !!!

[enaid]

Re: FOS and PPI

So those are the rules set out by the FSA for the FOS to refer to in making a decision on a mis selling claim ?

Seems a bit naff they have to follow rules made for the people being claimed against when they are supposed to be independant in their findings.

I found this case that does make sense out of some of the rules

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...decision-B.pdf

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

....

So those are the rules set out by the FSA for the FOS to refer to in making a decision on a mis selling claim ?

Seems a bit naff they have to follow rules made for the people being claimed against when they are supposed to be independant in their findings.
Naff indeed, ma'am. Add to that the fact that the FSA and FOS are funded by the banks, we have a situation where the rule-makers and enforcers are policing their own pay-masters. BUT - their pay-masters are largely funded by US - good old Mr & Mrs G. Public. If that's what they now consider to be 'policing by consent,' then I truly wonder whose consent the FSA/FOS are acting on. I don't recall ticking a box that said "yes" to this idiocy !!!
I found this case that does make sense out of some of the rules

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...decision-B.pdf
Nice one, that. It lists a lot of important principles, doesn't it ? I think it also shows what a difference it can make to a claim, if we can actually get an Ombudsman to take over from the Adjudicator. Mind you, that was about 3 years ago - I wonder if we'd get that kind of attention these days, eh ?

[Paul210]

Re: FOS and PPI

I think you can apply to a county court for enforcement of an FOS adjudication - it is binding on the bank / lender / company but not on the consumer.

not sure you can enforce where you have accepted settlement pending calculations which you subsequently disagree with. In theory you have agreed to take whatever they come up with. IMOH it would be touch and go which way a court would fall on this.

[The Debt Star]

Re: FOS and PPI

not sure you can enforce where you have accepted settlement pending calculations which you subsequently disagree with. In theory you have agreed to take whatever they come up with. IMOH it would be touch and go which way a court would fall on this.

Yes, my concerns exactly, which is why I asked the question. If you are corerct in this then by agreeing to a settlement despite not being put in a position to make an informed decision about the amount of redress, then the consumer has been shafted by both the FOS and the Bank.

he then had taken the case back in with the calculations. we had then sent them to what you call their calculation team.

I have had the FOS tell me that they do NOT involve themselves in individual claim calculations.

The above statements are at odds, given that either there is a FOS calculation team or there isn't and they won't get involved (after having stitched you up, that is).

The alternative is that both are correct and the FOS are completely arbitrary in what they will and will not assistb with. That is, they help Mr A appeal the Bank's calculations but not Mr B.

If so, then the FOS is moribund since consumers must be treated equally and impartially.

.

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

The above statements are at odds, given that either there is a FOS calculation team or there isn't and they won't get involved (after having stitched you up, that is).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tScm-eZInBE
Indeed so, DS - they seem to take whichever evasive stance suits them, as the occasion demands. I suspect that the lower echelons are just not 'au fait' with the FOS ethos, mostly having been recently drafted in - on a temporary basis - from the ranks of the Great Unwashed, and not trained up properly. TBH, I think if we can get the top brass - or the Service Review Team - to admit they are cheating with their little "which hand is it in ?" game, we might force a result, in that the FOS might finally be forced to declare which side of the damned fence it is on.

[Angry Cat]

Re: FOS and PPI

Never been impressed by the FOS.

My QC, most certainly was most unimpressed...

Okay, fairs fair, the FOS are probably of benefit to those who have straightforward simple cases but not re: cases relating to complex matters. The FOS have often been found to be probably either biased or incompetant.

At the end of the day, they (FOS) do not have sufficient time to look closely at cases and interpret general consumers badly written wordings.

[Bill-K]

Re: FOS and PPI

Agreed, AC. They can handle the easy stuff - but that's not what we need them for, is it ? When it comes to actually earning their keep, and dealing with the stronger meat, they wimp out. "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." - But what does "Get going" actually mean ? Depends on your lingo, dunnit ?

Avoiding yet another You-Tube clip, Wikipedia reckons:-

...the meaning of the phrase is "When the situation becomes difficult, the strong will work harder to meet the challenge."
Taken another way the phrase could mean, "Those who act tough and proud will vacate a situation when it becomes difficult lest they be proven not as tough as they appear to be."
When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough Get Going - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also agreed - they are there to adjudicate 'twixt the banks and the consumer - DIRECTLY. The consumer is not expected to have to employ an intermediary in order to make himself understood by the FOS, is he ? I daresay that a lot of the adjudicators are lesser educated than us 'Common People' down here - so it should be no great obstacle for them to understand 'Common English,' as it is spoke by us dahn 'ere on the streets. It seems odd that these adjudicators can perfectly understand the convolutions of their own gobbledegook, but need subtitles in order to grasp an episode of 'Only Fools and Horses.'

Plonkers, the lot of 'em...eh, Rodney ? Soz. Couldn't avoid You-Tube this time:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiS1IcKuG8s&NR=1

[Mr Muffet]

Re: FOS and PPI

Here is a short list of case studies as examples of how the FOS come to their decisions on either to uphold claims or not.

payment protection insurance (PPI) case studies


On the upheld claims this is what the FOS state in their final paragraph.

"We told the financial business to put the claimant in the position she would have been in, if she had not been advised to take out the policy"

Now to me this is clear enough and I am far from the sharpest knife in the box by a long way.

Where upfront PPI was placed on a loan it can't be too challenging I am sure to work out.

Credit Cards a little tougher and for the example on there it states.

We told the financial business to put the claimant in the position he would have been in, if he had not taken out the policy, by reconstructing his credit card account.

Going off that the rules are very clear and if the settlement they offer does not in fact do as stated then it must be looked at again.

I have seen somewhere that a credit card provider has stated that they are unable to reconstruct the account to its inception "due to the passage of time, information is no longer available". So the account was reconstructed minus quite a few years. The FOS have accepted this and advised the claimant to accept.

[The Debt Star]

Re: FOS and PPI

Update: The FOS have contacted me to say that my complaint has been formally re-opened. The FOS WILL review my calcs and provided they cannot see anything wrong with them will submit them to Egg, together with a formal view in writing that the Bank should settle.

[Turboman]

Re: FOS and PPI

I think skv is correct. Also, have you thought of charging compound interest and what does anyone think about the FOS's opinion on Compound Interest payment based upon Sempra Metals v Inland revenue? Would the FOS uphold that?

Hi---I am preparing my thoughts for a forthcoming claim and have been doing much reading on possible arguments if I go to court.

The new accepted FSA/FOS statement is "The claimant must be put back in the position as if he/she had never had PPI in the first place"

So my reading is simply that one calculates the effect of adding PPI (which I can do with assistance from Bill) --- so I therefore conclude that it is no longer required to use precedents like Sempra (which must be fully understood in case of cross-examination) or the complex arguments re "restitution."

Am I over simplifying the situation?

Turbs