MattyA's Masterplan....

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Hi all,
hope you are well and fighting the good fight.
I have decided to try and bring my last outstanding claim / counter claim to a close , with the help of AAD'S solicitor.
This claim is against the GM card for mis sold ppi and has been in court and stayed by GM since 2012.
I could lose I guess and end up looking at a big bill , but if I win it will be worth the fight.

We won the first skirmish in court , inc costs, and the second one was stayed the day before we were due in court ( Thanks Andrew ).... Now over to the new if they think it is worth fighting.
fingers crossed.

Matty

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Cheers Boss!

Hope you are well - the site has come on somewhat since the early days - great job.

Matty

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

I'll have a look next week at your FOS issues mate and try to help.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Thanks Batman.

[Batman]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Matty - I wish you tons of luck with your battles against the dictators.

Never give up!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Maybe we need a leading and well publicised case or two in which FOS cranks get sued for the unwarranted stress they create for innocent consumers? Perhaps that would open the gateway to real justice for the guy in the street?

Unfortunately the FOS is a gvt quango of sorts and thus those working for them are not specifically liable as they're following rules laid down in their procedural handbook (created by government idiots).

Point is, you cannot hold the adjudicator or the ombudsman liable unless there is clear negligence for example you can prove they are married to the person dealing with your complaint at the bank, or something similar that would personally deviate away from their legislative guidelines.

I agree with your point, bust sadly I did learn the hard way when I tried to sue an Adjudicator.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Thanks Di.Batman & Bill for your comments and support.

It might as well give it a go and appeal along the lines pointed above about contractual procedure.

Worth a go , after all it has been running for 4 years now....lol

Thanks again all.

I will keep you posted......but it may be a while yet!

Regards,

Matty

[Bill-K]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

I'm not familiar with Mrs A's M&S claim, Matty, so this may be too late - but if you are able to appeal on a procedural basis (which now appears to be the only option left) - then it may be possible to show that some of these rules were not applied by either M&S or the FOS, and therefore correct procedure was not followed. Worth a try, perhaps ?

The FSA Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 states:
DISP APP 3.2.1 The firm should consider, in the light of all the information provided by the complainant and otherwise already held by or available to the firm, whether there was a breach or failing by the firm.
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).

Additionally, PS10/12 Section 4.8 states: In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.

[Batman]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

The massive stress FOS create for ordinary people who just want justice is unacceptable and always shall be. I too have in the past fought them so hard but at least had quite a bit of FOS compensation off them for their own silly errors.

We continue to require a large stick to beat them with, metaphorically speaking, so they really take impartial positions rather than the typical PRO BANKER (back up the corrupt establishment at all costs) stance that many know them for today!

Maybe we need a leading and well publicised case or two in which FOS cranks get sued for the unwarranted stress they create for innocent consumers? Perhaps that would open the gateway to real justice for the guy in the street?

[di30]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

So sorry to hear this Matty

I think you may have read one of my in regards of packaged accounts, it did eventually go to a partial uphold, but it seems no matter what evidence/info you forward to back your case, they ombudsman almost always goes along with the adjudicators decision, again agreeing with the banks. It stinks and they have gone worse in recent years!

The other thing I did try was to have it assessed by the manager, as I didnt think my case went straight forward as it should, due to the fact they changed the adjudicators three times as the others left, it was like starting over again and the stress of repeating ourselves!! Not helped with my chronic illess as stress is the worse for kidney disease, as it could worsen the conditiion, yet again the manager wasnt having any of it. I could have moved it over to the assessor but think mine in the end there was nowhere to go with it.

As you know they will look into matters further but not on the merits of the case, if you think this may apply you can give it a go.

I know its very annoying! x

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

You need to reject this from the FOS and demand it is sent to a review case handler to review the decision and the length of time it's taken the FOS to act. This will generate a new complaint against the FOS and probably get you an extra £150+ in compo for the delay.

Try and not add new argument in your appeal to the case handler, instead pick up on faults and demand an explanation as to why they feel they are in a position to actually determine whether a mis-sale constitutes reason for having a policy in force. See what they say to that.

You want a clear explanation as to why they feel that just because the policy was there and in force, regardless that she could have claimed, she NEVER as she was unaware that there was ever a policy in force hence the actual merit of the claim has been missed totally because you don't dispute that she may have been covered, you're arguing that she did not want, request or need cover.

That is quite separate to their belief that the cover was suffice, which is what they seem to have adjourned on. Also you need to demand they get the facts straight and start acting in accordance with their own technical guidelines and case-studies. Clearly, you're trying to state that M&S told you that in order to be accepted for the product, taking the PPI stood you in better change of acceptance and without it the chances are you'd have been declined. They specifically need to know this - spell it out like that as well.

Hope this makes sense, good luck

Update

MRS A's Claim for PPI mis-selling against M&S

After being rejected by M&S and then the FOS , I rejected their decision and asked an ombudsman to review the case.
Received their decision yesterday again rejecting the claim.
I don't believe it to be honest , this out of all my claims was the strongest and most blatant mis-sell.
The Mrs was basically 'churned' at the check out and persuaded to close one M&S account with no PPI and open another with PPI to enable her to take advantage of a special offer / discount on her purchases that day.
The sales assistant even part filled in the application form including the tick agreeing to PPI.

Not sure where to go with this now as it seems to have run its course.

Maybe I just gotta accept , some you win some you lose.......but that isnt necessarily right.


Has anyone else had similar experience with M&S or indeed had success with a similar claim?



Matty

[Bill-K]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

WOW - Matty !!! I haven't seen this thread until now - thanks for mentioning it in the other thread we have been chatting in. To go from an original £4K offer to £30K+ is tremendous, and goes to show just what a thorough bunch of stitch-up merchants these criminals in which we mis-placed our trust really are. Well done for your perseverance, and I'm pleased to see that you are considering re-opening your other claims.

I would like to think that recent events and revelations following the creation of the FCA may have stemmed from the publicly-stated determination of Martin Wheatley to use his teeth, and that this is finally the start of a 'sea-change' in the necessary evil that is banking today. Whatever it is, I am certainly encouraged to hear of this result. The fact that HSBC have apparently contacted you 'out of the blue' after more than a year to offer further redress seems to suggest that they may have been '@$$-kicked' by the FCA - and if this is so, then it suggests that such '@$$-kicking' might finally be taking place across the board up there in the City.

A 'high-five' to Ken, who has also been a big player in this game for us PPI critters - and to Niddy, whom I have come to believe over recent times is a much finer-principled person than the entire 'fiducial' banking industry, the so-called 'regulators' - and even most of the other so-called 'self-help' consumer forums. Ken's survey of the banks sure seems to concur with my meagre experience, in that it seems to be the credit-card side of the loan industry that the sharks mostly inhabit - but I believe that the loan side of it still needs to be kept under surveillance. Particularly the 'sub-prime' market, where they appear to be only a click or two above good old Wonga et al.

[ken100464]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

Seems that the consumer is getting wise to this and HSBC for one maybe can see another train crash coming its way. Especially with the FCA starting to work out the banks are not following their rulebook. Either the FCA does something or its treating customers fairly (TCF) is just another load of b*********ks. I really hope this regulator actually has some teeth and isnt afraid to use them.

Anyway glad you got more back. My little survey of the banks reveals only a loan was calculated correctly. Every card was/is wrong.

[MattyA]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

I cant believe it!!!

After discussing the possibility of re opening my battles with the banks over PPI on another thread with Bill , further to recent headlines that the banks have been cheating us in the way they are settling PPI claims against them (I always believed they were wrong) , I received a letter out of the blue yesterday from HSBC saying that they had re-calculated my claim (settled in 2012 I think) and were sending me a further £8k+ !!!
Checked the bank this morning and it is already there!!!

Bloody Hell !!! - It is time to:
1 re-open this file and ask for their calculation as to how they have arrived at this figure
2 re-open all my other claims and challenge the settlements that I never believed were correct anyway.

I knew they were / are all it and it is time to fight again.

Matty

Ps - this brings the total figure to over £30k on this card - can you believe their original offer was £4K!!!!
How many people have they done up like kippers!
Please note : Barclays,Mint,GM card, MBNA,A&L ,Amex - I will be in touch in the near future.

[Batman]

Re: MattyA's Masterplan....

It is so nice to hear 'good' things for a change. But yes, the banks are monsters, the scum of the earth, and many will never even realise this unless they fall out with them.