MattyA's Masterplan....

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

I would refer this on mate, it's obviously bollocks (pardon the pun)...

FOS it

Cheers Boss.

it has been with the FOS since Feb of this year after HFC failed to respond in the allowed time.

However it is still awaiting allocation of an adjudicator - I will ring em tomorrow.

Matty

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Cheers di.

It was their final decision and they do metion Hamilton in their letter.
I cringed when I read that after reading your struggle with em.

re the further info - they have had it but are now pretending they havnt with back dated letters etc in an effort to cover their tracks.

Matty

[di30]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Sorry to hear this Matty.

I agree as well to take it to the FOS, and take it this is the final decision?

HFC!!! my Hamilton case are linked to them and have not had a good time with these at all.

Defo request a SAR.

Matty if this wasn't the final decision though I would write back and enclose any further info you may have.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Right....on with the update.

Very very strange all this - seems like more of the same from the cheating barstewards HSBC group as experienced previously by me.

As stated above their letter was dated 7-7-2011 and the comments state that their decision is based on the information available to them at that time.

What is very strange, if not orchestrated to say the very least, is that in response to an earlier letter from them asking that I fill in a questionaire in relation to my claim and send it back to them by 15-7-2011 - which I did.
The information on the questionare is quite damning and I am sure not what they would have wanted to see.
This was sent on the 8th by recorded delivery.

If they had asked for information to be forwarded by the 15th or they would make their decision on the information available from their records - why would they then conclude their investigations over a week before the deadline set by them???

I think it is more than likely that ,as i am using this claim as a counter to their claim against me and is because my solicitor has written to them in the last week advising them of this, they are trying to cover their tracks / blow my defence and counter claim out of the water - call me a cynic if you must.


Ohh - I almost forgot to say that I have also spoken to during the course of last week and was told that the investigation was still being processed and that they couldnt give me a timescale as to when I could expect an answer....lol......why not ,their letter of the 7th should have been on the system for all to see.

Time to pursue the SAR that has been with them since jan of this year me thinks ,which they wont process due to lack of siggy etc - just as HSBC did.
Might do this via HSBC's MD agian with a copy letter to the ICO - it worked a treat last time.
Me thinks SAR should include all data held on me up to date - inc recordings of telephone conversations.

any comments peeps?

I may have to keep my powder dry for a day or two as my solicitor is on holiday until Monday.

Matty

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

I would refer this on mate, it's obviously bollocks (pardon the pun)...

FOS it

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Bad news today.....

HFC have knocked back my PPI claim - bummer.
They say it was not an advised sale - they dont do that.
They kindly enclosed a copy of the original signed application form on which it states in BOLD 'we strongly recomend that you take out this cover'.......
They have ignored everything in my claim and state that 'upon my personal review of our records' 'I has based my findings on the information available to me I regret that I am unable to uphold the claim.'


There is something not right here.....whilst typing this I have just noticed the date on their letter 7/7/2011 - I have received it today in an envelope date stamped 2/08/2011 (will keep this for future reference)

This plot is thickening all the time!

To be continued......(have to go and pick my daughter up)

Matty

[IF]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Well done Matty

[di30]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Update:

Another one has been upheld - this time Mint.

It has been with FOS since Christams - but Mint have contacted them telling them that they would like to settle and that their offer will be calculated in accordance with FOS guidelines.

I decided to chase this after getting a letter from RBS saying that the claim had been upheld in favour of the bank....No one told me!
So I rang FOS and they told me that Mint had told them they were prepared to make an offer.
Rang RBS,number on the letter - they had no idea and were still saying it was upheld in banks favour - so rang a number for PPS team at RBS and they confirmed that they would be making an offer and that it would be calculated in accordance with FOS guidelines.

Matty

My head's gone lol and don't we all know it I thought I posted up to this one earlier, what a plonker I am .

Matty that is fab, well done!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Awesome matey

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Update:

Another one has been upheld - this time Mint.

It has been with FOS since Christams - but Mint have contacted them telling them that they would like to settle and that their offer will be calculated in accordance with FOS guidelines.

I decided to chase this after getting a letter from RBS saying that the claim had been upheld in favour of the bank....No one told me!
So I rang FOS and they told me that Mint had told them they were prepared to make an offer.
Rang RBS,number on the letter - they had no idea and were still saying it was upheld in banks favour - so rang a number for PPS team at RBS and they confirmed that they would be making an offer and that it would be calculated in accordance with FOS guidelines.

Matty

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Will keep you posted.

Matty

[di30]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Cheers NID & Di.

They also claim that as the application was made' in her own time' she had sufficient oppurtunity to consider whether or not shee needed the PPI.

I have written back enclosing a copy of the original in store application form , pointing out that the application was made in store (as it clearly states on the form) and that it is also quite clear that the form was part filled in by the sales assistant,who should have known (if properly trained) that due to my wifes employment details that she did not need PPI.
I also pointed out that it was an high pressure sale at the till - sign up today and you will get 10% off etc.

Will see what they come back with.

Matty

With pleasure Matty.

I think they hope by saying what they did that you will back down, but you are doing the right thing here, keep at them and all crossed here for you. x

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Cheers NID & Di.

They also claim that as the application was made' in her own time' she had sufficient oppurtunity to consider whether or not shee needed the PPI.

I have written back enclosing a copy of the original in store application form , pointing out that the application was made in store (as it clearly states on the form) and that it is also quite clear that the form was part filled in by the sales assistant,who should have known (if properly trained) that due to my wifes employment details that she did not need PPI.
I also pointed out that it was an high pressure sale at the till - sign up today and you will get 10% off etc.

Will see what they come back with.

Matty

[di30]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Agreed Niddy.

The point is she was already covered via NHS and there would be no need to have put a claim in if - sickness etc, so basically she would not have been using it anyway.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

How about this for a comment....

Re - MsrA's M&S card ppi

Knockback letter received:

one of the reasons was:
'The insurance is still valid regardless of any existing insurances that you may have in place ,as well as any benefits that you may receive from your employer'

FFS - is this not the whole crux of the PPI mis-selling debate? (The selling of uneeded insurance?)

She was and still is a nurse for the same NHS trust

Matty

Well their reply could be construed as acceptable IF they were certain that she did not have an alternative similar product that protected her in place, ie to claim mis-selling.

Sounds like they think she was and still is eligible; you need to be outlining the fact that she works for the NHS and so gets employers sickness pay etc thus PPI was never necessary as she was already adequately covered via her employer or whatever policy she had at the time.