Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

[MoneyMoney]

Hey guys it is me again , just prepare yourselves as I have loads of claims to do and will need all the help I can get.

Anyways I have a loan well 2 loans that is with Natwest (RBOS), I have been fighting with them from early on this year in regards to mis-sold PPI. They dragged it out giving all kinds of excuses and I kept at them and once the court claim was over they said they will write to me with their final decision.

Got some correspondence from them 'good will gesture' :rolleyes: it is not the figure I calculate it at as I would like for them to pay interest in restitution or compensatory interest.

I wrote them again saying that their figures are off and they write back saying that that is their full and final offer.

I am thinking of taking them to court for the full amount, I have a POC put together, but before I go the court route any help or advice or tips or need for anymore letter writing. ALL help would be greatly appreciated .

[di30]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Hiya

Wishing you luck on all your reclaims, and of course we will help all we can.

So basically you have already made a start, and given an offer of goodwill, they got the calculations wrong, but are not willing to change it?

You could post up the figures and get these checked on here by all means, I'm sure our lovely folks will try to help all they can in working them out for you.

So your thinking of the court direction?
I take it you've also had the opportunity to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) as well, but choose the courts as an option?

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Hey di30, yes to the points above LOL, I did take it up with Natwest first and they drag their feet they eventually decide that will pay me as a good will without admission of liability. However, they do not want to pay CI and they refuse to cancel my PPI as they said I have to accept their offer first.

I have worked out what I believe I should get back or what I would like back. Let me know if you want me to post up info etc of the loans etc TIA

I have also sent it to the FOS and they have upheld my claim and said that Natwest and I need to make arrangement on the figures that needs to be returned.

Basically I want a certain amount back, regardless f the CI they have taken some money from me and choose to ignore it and I want that back. each time I write them about it they never respond to that particular amount.

I don't mind taking them to court for it all, but I want you guys help and advice.

Please let me know what you need so I get this ball rolling please in regards to help and how to go about dealing with the matter to bring it to a close. gain TIA for all your help and advice .

[leclerc]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Hey di30, yes to the points above LOL, I did take it up with Natwest first and they drag their feet they eventually decide that will pay me as a good will without admission of liability. However, they do not want to pay CI and they refuse to cancel my PPI as they said I have to accept their offer first.
They have to cancel the PPI and confirm in writing since if they have admitted it is missold then they are actually perpetuating the issue by their failure to cancel the PPI. Did you mention this to the FOS and do they think that element is fair?
I have worked out what I believe I should get back or what I would like back. Let me know if you want me to post up info etc of the loans etc TIA

I have also sent it to the FOS and they have upheld my claim and said that Natwest and I need to make arrangement on the figures that needs to be returned.

Basically I want a certain amount back, regardless f the CI they have taken some money from me and choose to ignore it and I want that back. each time I write them about it they never respond to that particular amount.

I don't mind taking them to court for it all, but I want you guys help and advice.

Please let me know what you need so I get this ball rolling please in regards to help and how to go about dealing with the matter to bring it to a close. gain TIA for all your help and advice .

I would be cautious of taking it to court based on the fact that case can be lost even if the FOS agree that misselling has occurred since it will go down to who said what.

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

@LecLerc, thanks for responding .

This is all recent so I thought I would holla for some help in my next direction. I will draft a letter off to the FOS about Natwest reply in regards to cancelling my PPI.


In regards to the court route, isn't there a court ruling on the mis-sold of PPI? I am just making sure, then if there is a precedent as such. Should all court follow suite. I am asking as i am learning, so please be patient with me and teach me .

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Just had a skim through some fos case studies

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...e-studies.html

I'm 100% sure that the majority, if not all of my ppis were mis-sold.

So where do i go from here?

The FOS is extremely busy, and there is a long delay in getting responses from them because of it. I don't mind going the court route, but only if there is a court judgement (i thought there was, am i wrong? Can someone direct me to it please).

If there is a court decision would this be a mistake in law? as some of my ppis are statute barred.

Please help.

[EXC]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

If there is a court decision would this be a mistake in law? as some of my ppis are statute barred.

Please help.

There is a court decision on mistake and although it was only in the County Court it went against the claimant Lexology


Also you need to bear in mind that a court cannot and will not enforce a goodwill offer per se. It would have to establish mis-selling in law and if there is one thing that came out of the PPI Judicial Review it's that the courts are an inadequate medium to use for seeking redress in PPI mis-selling cases.

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

There is a court decision on mistake and although it was only in the County Court it went against the claimant Lexology


Also you need to bear in mind that a court cannot and will not enforce a goodwill offer per se. It would have to establish mis-selling in law and if there is one thing that came out of the PPI Judicial Review it's that the courts are an inadequate medium to use for seeking redress in PPI mis-selling cases.

If this is the case, then how do we get these financial companies to pay back what we believe they owe us?

So if we paid £100, and we should get back £100 and they offer us £50, there is nothing we can do?

I can understand the court not enforcing a goodwill gesture. The goodwill gesture is wrong and I want them to pay the correct figure, but they don't want to.

Are you trying to say that we have no legal basis with which to challenge their incorrect goodwill gesture?

In regard to the lexology link, the FOS would actually disagree with the judge and they would say that it isn't based on the documentation sent after the sale, but what transpires during the actual sale - which is why its mis-selling - its the point of sale that's the issue.

Also, the lexology link is about a loan. Would it be any different for a credit card?

How can the financial company prove they sent any ppi information or that the customer received any?

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Just checked the FOS response in regards to statue barred ppi stuff (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf)

They say that its not necessarily statute barred and they will make the decision whether it is or not.

I do understand that they have no legal power to force anybody to pay though, and if this is the case, why even bother going to them if the financial institution can just say, 'well, i don't agree with the decision made by the FOS, and i'm not gonna pay'?

[EXC]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

If this is the case, then how do we get these financial companies to pay back what we believe they owe us?

So if we paid £100, and we should get back £100 and they offer us £50, there is nothing we can do?

You can go to the FOS.

I can understand the court not enforcing a goodwill gesture. The goodwill gesture is wrong and I want them to pay the correct figure, but they don't want to.

Are you trying to say that we have no legal basis with which to challenge their incorrect goodwill gesture?

Yes. The only legal avenue open to you is to prove the mis-selling in law which is inherently difficult. As the FSA stated very recently ICOB (the insurance regulations) ''were not written with PPI in mind''.

In regard to the lexology link, the FOS would actually disagree with the judge and they would say that it isn't based on the documentation sent after the sale, but what transpires during the actual sale - which is why its mis-selling - its the point of sale that's the issue.

I think you're missing the point MM. In respect of the Limitations Act it's irrelevant what happened during the point of sale - it's the documentation that counts. I'll expand on that in another post.

Also, the lexology link is about a loan. Would it be any different for a credit card?

No, the same principle applies.

How can the financial company prove they sent any ppi information or that the customer received any?

According to other judgments I've read they don't have to prove they sent them. Where there is no proof they were actually sent and no proof you received them the court will go by the PPI providers written procedures that they will send the information.

Hope this helps.

[EXC]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

Just checked the FOS response in regards to statue barred ppi stuff (http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf)

They say that its not necessarily statute barred and they will make the decision whether it is or not.

I do understand that they have no legal power to force anybody to pay though, and if this is the case, why even bother going to them if the financial institution can just say, 'well, i don't agree with the decision made by the FOS, and i'm not gonna pay'?

The FOS has complete discretion on statute barring. The courts however are bound by the Limitations Act.

You're right in saying that the FOS cannot enforce a compensation payment but you can.

[EXC]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

In regard to the lexology link, the FOS would actually disagree with the judge and they would say that it isn't based on the documentation sent after the sale, but what transpires during the actual sale - which is why its mis-selling - its the point of sale that's the issue.

Yes the FOS will base their view on ''what is likely to have happened'' and ''what in their opinion is fair and reasonable''

In contrast a court will simply ''give effect to the law'' based on the evidence. And in a court of law documentative evidence is king.

This is an important distinction to bear in mind.

The law of limitation exists because it was decided that there must come a point in people's affairs where there is certainty. That overriding objective must be borne in mind.

The English law has long recognised that clear rules strictly applied can lead to injustice. In the case of limitation it recognises that the strict application of time limits may lead to injustice and hence section 32 (1) of the Limitation Act 1980 which allows (in the words of the heading to the section) "Postponement of limitation period in case of fraud, concealment or mistake".

In any case where the section 32 (1) is pleaded the court will bear the overriding objective in mind; it will not allow the section 32 tail to wag the Limitation Act dog as that would undermine the whole principle of limitation.

In any action you first have to show that there was some "fraud, concealment or mistake". Quoting the Act: "the period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff has discovered the fraud, concealment or mistake (as the case may be) or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.’’

I have highlighted the words in red because they are important as the effect of this clause in respect of PPI mis-selling claims works against the claimant because it imposes a certain degree of responsibility (or diligence as the Act states) on the claimant to have had discovered the mistake.

PPI mis-selling claims have 2 broad causes of action:

1) Non-optional - that the requirement to purchase the policy was misrepresented (usually verbally) as in some way conditional to the provision of credit.

2) Suitability - that the policy could never be claimed on because of restrictions on the policy holder's circumstances.

In each and every purchase of PPI the application form or agreement will always state somewhere that the policy is optional and the policy summary or policy itself will always detail the cover as these are both regulatory requirements, as is stating that the policy can be cancelled at any time.

Therefore, regardless of what the salesperson told the perspective customer of the policy's optionability or suitability during the sales process, the claimant could with reasonable diligence have discovered it on or around the time of purchase by simply being in possession of and reading the key documents and therefore it is at this point that the six year limitation clock begins to tick.

This is the very essence of the Holyoak judgment. To quote the case summary:

‘’The Judge found as a matter of fact that the documentation completed by Lloyds and provided to Mr Holyoak at the time of entering into the PPI policy in 2004 was very clear as to the optional nature of the PPI. He commented that “there is nothing more plain than that document”. Moreover, he highlighted Mr Holyoak’s right to cancel the insurance and noted that this right was set out in the policy documentation. The Judge accordingly found that Mr Holyoak could easily have discovered the alleged wrong-doing by Lloyds through reasonable due-diligence but had failed to do; indeed to do so, Mr Holyoak had only been required to read the documents that had been provided to him by Lloyds. Therefore neither sections14 A nor 32 (1) (c ) of 1980 Act assisted him and the claims were time barred.’’

This leads to the inescapable conclusion that in PPI cases the six year limitation period will necessarily begin on or around the time the policy was sold and as such s32 (1) c cannot be relied upon to extend it.

So crucially, it is not from when you actually became aware but when it is deemed you should or could have become aware. And that will invariably be the point the policy was sold.

[MoneyMoney]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

thanks for the reply Exc. I really appreciate it.

[EXC]

Re: Natwest (RBOS) PPI Claim

thanks for the reply Exc. I really appreciate it.

No probs MM.

I'm just sorry that I can't be more positive.