Another PPI disaster with Halifax

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 04:44:AM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Originally posted by Simonistired View Post

Hello to everyone, and thanks in advance for any help that comes my way...

Long story short:
Complaint originally registered with Halifax in December
Complaint stated that when I originally applied for a credit card back in 1999 I was not informed of any PPI other than being told by the advisor at the branch on how to complete the application form.
I also stated that my employment circumstances change in 2005 from employed to self employed and I informed the bank of this change.
Each time I have raised this my complaint with then, or replied with a more detailed letter the following ha applied:

They has mis-represented my complaint back to me
They have used the standard letter stating that they have reviewed all evidence and cannot uphold my complaint.

However, last month I made an SAR and specifically requested a copy of the original application form, and copies of all evidence that they have reviewed that led to my complaint being refused - to which I received only copies of all my statements - nothing else.

I sent them a later a little over 2 weeks ago stating:

They had not followed the FSA process in handling my complaint
They had not supplied me with any evidence to support the rejection of my complaint
They could not have fully investigated my complaint as they had no evidence other than my statements to rely on
They had no proof that the policy was not mis-sold

I have had yet another letter stating that they had again reviewed all the evidence and still rejected my complaint.

How can they reject my complaint when they have no evidence to do so, and could not even provide me with a copy of the original credit card application form.

I am at a complete loss a to what to do next. I really don't want to use a firm that will take 30% of the claim, and from what I have read recently - it could take up to a year to get a decision from the FSA?

If anyone can help, I am on my knees......

Thanks in advance.

Simon

I had a Halifax Credit Card with PPI back in 2002 and they rejected my PPI claim. But took this to the FOS and they over turned and upheld my complaint. Halifax was quick to back down then. Its nothing to worry about as it would be Halifax's standard fob off rejection letter.

**charitynjw** · 6th July 2013, 05:08:AM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Hi Simonistired,

I would write to them again, reminding them that, re the SAR, they are obliged to give you all/any data which identifies you as a living person.
This will obviously include, amongst other things, a copy of the original agreement.
If they cannot do so, they are obliged to say why they cannot do so.
Should they ignore your lawful request, you are prepared to refer the matter to the Information Commisioner, at the same time referring the rejection of your PPI claim,as sugested above, to the FOS.
Copy the CEO of Halifax into the complaint.
&, Golden Rule, everything with proof of postage.

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 15:18:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

I written to Halifax after my first rejection letter and got rejected again with the same FOB off letter. I took it to the FOS and long story but got the CEO of Halifax involved etc and put in a complaint to them on how Halifax customer service handling etc of my complaint and the CEO gave me additional £100 on top of my £400 I got from Halifax eventually to say sorry.

**Bill-K** · 6th July 2013, 15:26:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Hi Simon. As SAVA05 says, this is standard fob-off stuff, and they usually persist with this in the hope that you will just give up and go away - as a lot of people probably do, I guess. Sure - you can refer it to the FOS - but it does usually take a long time for them to deal with these days, and I prefer to keep on at the lender until that avenue is completely exhausted.

So - as Chaz says - keep on at them about the fact that:
EITHER they cannot have investigated your claim properly, considering the insufficient data,
OR they have not complied with the Data Protection Act by failing to fully comply with your DSAR.

I second Chaz's suggestion to copy the CEO's office in on this, and make it clear that a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office is on its way. If this is still an active account, then it might also help if you mention that the debt may be legally unenforceable if they do not have the original credit agreement. If you send them a CCA s.77-79 request (costs £1), and they do not comply within 10 working days, then I believe you can suspend payment until such time as they DO comply. This puts a bit more pressure on them to make an effort, I believe.

And yes - at the very least, get Proof of Postage Certificates for all correspondence (these are free if you take the letters to a Post Office to post). The more important or time-sensitive stuff would be best supported with a 'Signed For' delivery.

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 16:57:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Originally posted by Bill-K View Post

Hi Simon. As SAVA05 says, this is standard fob-off stuff, and they usually persist with this in the hope that you will just give up and go away - as a lot of people probably do, I guess. Sure - you can refer it to the FOS - but it does usually take a long time for them to deal with these days, and I prefer to keep on at the lender until that avenue is completely exhausted.

So - as Chaz says - keep on at them about the fact that:
EITHER they cannot have investigated your claim properly, considering the insufficient data,
OR they have not complied with the Data Protection Act by failing to fully comply with your DSAR.

I second Chaz's suggestion to copy the CEO's office in on this, and make it clear that a complaint to the Information Commissioner's Office is on its way. If this is still an active account, then it might also help if you mention that the debt may be legally unenforceable if they do not have the original credit agreement. If you send them a CCA s.77-79 request (costs £1), and they do not comply within 10 working days, then I believe you can suspend payment until such time as they DO comply. This puts a bit more pressure on them to make an effort, I believe.

And yes - at the very least, get Proof of Postage Certificates for all correspondence (these are free if you take the letters to a Post Office to post). The more important or time-sensitive stuff would be best supported with a 'Signed For' delivery.

Thanks Bill-K , you and Di are stars on this web site and give excellent and friendly advice, unlike the other web site on money expert. They are not friendly and put people down. Its looks like Halifax always put people off and I nearly gave up as well when they rejected me with a 4 page explanation. Looks like its the FOS, it took me from start to finish with them 6 months to complete my case. FOS are slow but due to high volume of complaints to them, but the easy bit is that if you got PPI and Halifax admit it then its quicker. I be tempted to contact the CEO of Halifax first before going to the FOS.

**Bill-K** · 6th July 2013, 19:26:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

You're very kind comments are appreciated, SAVA - but we all have our little 'diva' moments from time to time !!! The tactic of putting peeps off by simply being obstructive seems fairly universal these days - and they now seem to have adopted the idea of sending fob-off letters consisting of 10 or more pages of generic templated twaddle in order to intimidate claimants. Most of us forum users, like Simon and yourself - can see through this - but I suspect it throws many others off the trail.

I agree that getting the admission of mis-selling is the biggest hurdle - it's half the battle, really. After that, it's just a matter of evaluating their offer of redress - and if all the FOS have to do is apply the FSA/FCA rules to calculating the redress, then their job is easier. In such cases - hopefully - they will adjudicate relatively quickly.

But I think involving the CEO - and perhaps the ICO - is well worth doing first. The more effort the claimant has made to resolve the matter, the better chance they have of convincing the FOS that their claim deserves a good hearing. And also - like yourself - there is the chance of an additional compensation payment, too.

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 19:57:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Originally posted by Bill-K View Post

You're very kind comments are appreciated, SAVA - but we all have our little 'diva' moments from time to time !!! The tactic of putting peeps off by simply being obstructive seems fairly universal these days - and they now seem to have adopted the idea of sending fob-off letters consisting of 10 or more pages of generic templated twaddle in order to intimidate claimants. Most of us forum users, like Simon and yourself - can see through this - but I suspect it throws many others off the trail.

I agree that getting the admission of mis-selling is the biggest hurdle - it's half the battle, really. After that, it's just a matter of evaluating their offer of redress - and if all the FOS have to do is apply the FSA/FCA rules to calculating the redress, then their job is easier. In such cases - hopefully - they will adjudicate relatively quickly.

But I think involving the CEO - and perhaps the ICO - is well worth doing first. The more effort the claimant has made to resolve the matter, the better chance they have of convincing the FOS that their claim deserves a good hearing. And also - like yourself - there is the chance of an additional compensation payment, too.

Hello Bill-K, I don't want to hijack this forum for the Original Poster ( OP ) but never give in on the first rejection letter but it annoys me that the Banks seem to reject the first PPI claim and that Halifax policy it seems and it slows everything down and it annoys me especially when they reject claims that they know would get upheld by the FOS.

**Bill-K** · 6th July 2013, 20:38:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Your posts are most encouraging, SAVA. You are contributing - NOT hi-jacking, matey. LOL - you should see some of the hi-jacking that I'M guilty of sometimes !!! A bit of friendly banter is good, I reckon - and it's OK to chuck the occasional paper plane around the office. This is what a forum is all about, isn't it ? We share our experiences - and thus our acquired knowledge. I thank you for that.

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 21:18:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

I am always learning from my bitter experience on this subject. Like I said on my forum about my Goldfish Credit Card, no Banks seem to want to know or take responsibility for it. I know it is HFC Bank who were responsible for issuing me that card as when it went into default it had there name as the original creditor at the time. I just say this on the other forum really but do you believe that Goldfish Credit Cards application ( mainly postal I think ) were all boxes pre-ticked, Di said maybe they were all pre-ticked at the time. I hoping it was if we are all honest as I think a lot of PPI were paid on it. I doubt it if you could even get these old cards without at the time without PPI automatically added as a matter of course.

**Bill-K** · 6th July 2013, 21:50:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Originally posted by SAVA05 View Post

...Di said maybe they were all pre-ticked at the time.

I suspect that was the case back then, but getting proof of that will be difficult, of course. The general 'demeanour' of the lenders over the years certainly seems to suggest that they thrived on giving us punters the impression that we had to dance to their tune. I don't think this has changed - and I doubt that it will. The way that Simon's claim has been dealt with is just another aspect of this attitude, I reckon.

**SAVA05** · 6th July 2013, 22:01:PM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Simonistired, don't give up Halifax will not win. I am confident taking this further they will so quickly back down.

**Simonistired** · 7th July 2013, 05:46:AM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Hello All.

Thank you so much for the replies. To give further information: They sent me a final reply on Feb 14th, and despite me raising specific points they continue to send the standard reply. Couple of points to note:

Not one single person during the 7 months I have been contacting Halifax has responded to any direct question I have raised. They have simply echoed my points in a letter (Often mis-representing them) and replied with the standard - we have considered all evidence - blah blah blah.
Despite a direct explicit request for this evidence - none has been presented to me.
All post is sent as Special Delivery, so it is tracked with a unique ID and I know the date it arrives and can download a copy of the signature.

The following was my letter sent in June:

**********************************************************
**********************************************************
My SAR request - to which they only sent copy statements
**********************************************************
**********************************************************

****** SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998 ******

First and foremost: I will only accept correspondence in writing from you as it is the only way to guarantee accuracy of your responses, so please do not telephone me.

With regards to your letter dated the 28th and February 2013 & 14th of February 2013, I am very disappointed that you have rejected my complaint, since I believe I have genuine grounds to make a reclaim on the Payment Protection Insurance that was mis sold to me.

I am therefore making a SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST under the DATA PROTECTION ACT 1998. Please send me copies of all the relevant information and evidence that has been used by your department to base the rejection of my complaint. Specifically the original contract that I signed and any subsequent documentation that I would have signed when applying for my credit card.

I will also require a complete breakdown of all transactions that relate to any PPI or Insurance premium & any other charges that were applied to my Credit Card since the account was opened in 1999. If any of the charges required manual intervention, copies of documentation supporting the manual intervention and the reasons as to why.

It seems a lot of banks are also wrongly interpreting the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 as a requirement to only disclose six years worth of personal data and charge additional fees beyond the £10 allowed, and this is wholly wrong. The DPA clearly states that all information held must be disclosed and it has no correlation to the Limitation act 1980 at all. If you no longer hold data beyond 6 years however, I would like a signed declaration from your data controller and a copy of all documents pertaining to its proper disposal. The DPA also states the maximum allowed charge for a Subject Access Request is £10. I have therefore enclosed a cheque for £10 made payable to Halifax Card Services. If this needs to be made payable to a different company name please contact me immediately in writing (return the cheque for my disposal) and I will send a new one.

PLEASE NOTE: I AM NOT REQUESTING COPY STATEMENTS (OF WHICH YOU CHARGE £5 PER STATEMENT) AND I DO NOT AUTHORISE YOU TO TAKE ANY MONEY FROM ANY OF MY ACCOUNTS. I ENCLOSE A CHEQUE FOR £10 TO COVER THE CHARGE HALIFAX IS ALLOWED TO MAKE UNDER A SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST.

I fully expect Halifax to send this information through within the maximum time allows by the Information Commissioners Office of 40 days.

Whilst not exhaustive and for the avoidance of doubt I shall list what I require:

Full copies of all ORIGINAL contracts that exist between myself and your organisation; including copies of any documents you hold in support of same.
Copies of all correspondence, including all letters, faxes, emails and memos sent and received between ourselves, and any other third party in relation to my PPI complaint.
Copies of any telephone recordings and/or transcripts of these recordings as well as any logs or journals that relate to them.
A complete breakdown of all transactions that relate to any PPI or Insurance premium & any other charges that were applied to my Credit Card since the account was opened in 1999. If any of the charges required manual intervention, copies of documentation supporting the manual intervention and the reasons as to why.
Copies of ALL the evidence that you refer to in your letters that led to the rejection of my complaint.
Where any previous information or records held have been deleted or disposed of, the methods used to do so, including dates, reason for deletion, certificates or references confirming details of destruction. Where you are unable to provide such certificates, please provide a declaration, signed by an authorised officer of your company, confirming the dates and methods of destruction of this data.

I enclose the maximum statutory fee of £10.

You have 40 days to comply with this request.

If you fail to comply fully I shall enter a formal complaint with the Information Commissioners Office which could result in a fine and prosecution.

**********************************************************
**********************************************************
My letter in response to receiving only statements - this was cobbled together from information throughout this forum - but I forget where I got what....
**********************************************************
**********************************************************

In response to my letters of complaint concerning the above complaint, your responses explained that you were unable to find sufficient evidence of mis-selling, and that you were therefore unable to uphold my complaint.It has since come to my attention that the way in which my complaint has been dealt with is subject to the FSA regulations, as provided in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 - some of which I have attached to this letter.
It is now my belief that my complaint has not been dealt with properly and fairly under those rules, and I respectfully request that you review your earlier decision not to uphold my complaint, and that you do so in compliance with the FSA regulations. I appreciate your time and attention to the task of investigating my claim, but your rejection of my complaint appears to be based solely on your own apparent inability to find any evidence to support my complaint. This is hardly surprising, as I doubt if such evidence would now exist in your records, and if it did, I doubt that you have any incentive to look for it.
The evidence that you seem to have ignored in your investigation is the generally accepted view that any PPI product sold in recent years is likely to have been mis-sold for a wide range of reasons - a fact borne out by the very need for PS 10/12 to be drawn up by the FSA in 2010. You have clearly made no effort to find any of this documentary evidence to refute my claim, but as DISP. APP. 3 makes clear, most – if not all – of that evidence cannot be relied upon.
Furthermore, I recently made a Subject Access Request (SAR) to obtain copies of any evidence you have relied on (as referred to in every single letter you have sent to me) and a copy of the original Credit Card Application form from 1999. In response to my SAR I have received only copies of my statements, and nothing else. Which clearly states you have no additional evidence with which to support your position. If this is the evidence that you are relying on there is nothing that refutes the claim that I - along with many thousands of others - was led to believe that the credit card application may not be advanced unless I bought the PPI that was being sold along with it. The assertion that I ticked a ‘Yes’ box after having been presented with copious amounts of ‘small print’ is not deemed by the FSA as sufficient evidence to show that mis-selling did not take place. The fact remains that neither my options nor the ‘small print’ terms were explained to me clearly, and that I was effectively misled in an ‘advised’ sale of PPI. It is generally accepted that this is the most likely probability, and the onus is upon you to produce clear evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Despite a direct request for this evidence or any supporting documentation, Halifax have failed to produce a single item of evidence to reject my claim.
It also clearly indicates that my complaint has not been dealt with in accordance to the FSA regulations, which leads further to the fact that you have no grounds, or evidence to reject my complaint.
I therefore look forward to you providing me with a full refund of all insurance premiums collected via my credit card since the account was opened, plus interest at 8% per annum - not to forget any interest directly related to the insurance premium that would have been charged by the account not being cleared in full by the payment date.
I expect to receive this payment within 14 days of the date of this letter. If the full refund is not received, I will refer it to the FOS and/or GISC, which I hope will not be necessary - bearing in mind the considerable cost of doing so, and the time and effort involved.

Yours sincerely

Encl: Copy of selected FSA regulations.

I feel I should remind you of your agreement to abide by the FSA regulations on PPI Redress contained within Policy Statement PS 10/12, some of which are reproduced here for your reference.
DISP APP 3.2.2 The firm should seek to establish the true substance of the complaint, rather than taking a narrow interpretation of the issues raised, and should not focus solely on the specific expression of the complaint. This is likely to require an approach to complaint handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the complaint.
DISP APP 3.3.1 Where a complaint is made, the firm should assess the complaint fairly, giving appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence, including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the firm identifies. The firm is not expected automatically to assume that there has been a breach or failing.
DISP APP 3.3.2 The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.
DISP APP 3.3.3 The firm should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by documentary proof. The firm should take account of a complainant's limited ability fully to articulate his complaint or to explain his actions or decisions made at the time of the sale.
DISP APP 3.3.4 Where the complainant's account of events conflicts with the firm's own records or leaves doubt, the firm should assess the reliability of the complainant's account fairly and in good faith. The firm should make all reasonable efforts (including by contact with the complainant where necessary) to clarify ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before making any finding against the complainant.
DISP APP 3.3.5 The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
DISP APP 3.3.9 In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).

************************************************** ********
************************************************** ********
Here is the reply
************************************************** ********
************************************************** ********

http://postimg.org/image/o8i6eptkh/

**Simonistired** · 7th July 2013, 05:55:AM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Am I correct in thinking that David Nicholson is the current CEO of Halifax?

**Simonistired** · 7th July 2013, 06:33:AM

Re: Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Additional point to note:

This related to an account opened in 1999 - Halifax in one of their letters state that prior to 2005 selling of PPI was not regulated by the FSA.

Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Another PPI disaster with Halifax

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?