PPI redress confusion

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thank you, Di - you're very kind. Here's XXX back at ya, gal. - I only hope I've helped TJP - and not added to their confusion !!!

It's always a privilege and pleasure to join you in a thread - and I'm sure that TJP will get there in the end.

Aww thank you Bill and likewise xx


I'm sure TJP will find it a great help and will certainly get there, we will do our best to make sure of that :-) lol Xxxx

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thank you, Di - you're very kind. Here's XXX back at ya, gal. - I only hope I've helped TJP - and not added to their confusion !!!

It's always a privilege and pleasure to join you in a thread - and I'm sure that TJP will get there in the end.

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Thank you too Bill
Loving your input! xxx

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Although the FOS cannot adjudicate on PPI claims that were mis-sold prior to the FSA taking over the regulation of insurance selling on 14/01/05, which is why the FOS have suggested that you contact the Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) - I believe Di is correct in that the current FCA rules still apply to the way in which firms that are now regulated by the FCA deal with complaints. So I believe that they are still obliged to deal with your claim properly and fairly, and to abide by the current FCA rules for doing this - and that the FOS should enforce the FCA rules in that respect.

It may be that the FOS cannot enforce DISP APP 3.7.2 & 3.9.2 if the PPI was sold before 14/01/05, but I believe that 3.9.4 applies to all PPI complaints, as it does not affect the method or amount of any redress that may be due to the original mis-selling - it simply sets out the way in which the firm is expected to deal with any PPI claim made after 14/01/05. However - that is merely my own interpretation of the FCA rules, and the FOS would probably argue against that, unless/until the FCA agrees with it. My interpretation is based on the fact that there are many other FCA rules which govern the way in which firms should deal with all complaints (ie., not just PPI complaints since 14/01/05) - and these rules are enforceable by the FOS.

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

cheers di, well put as usual. There is no way I am giving up on this one, not now I know about the FCA guidleine. I am currently composing a letter of complaint to the CEO at the moment and will send that on tomorrow. thanks for all the encouragement to keep going

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Excellent write up Bill

I know it can be a right pain keeping on at them, feeling your not getting anywhere but it has been done, they do get fed up and realise your not getting anywhere, this is not good for their records if they keep failing customers this way.

As our Bill as said, do give it another go by attaching the info within the FCA information of the guidelines, they must follow no matter when the product was purchased. :-) Stay strong, stand your ground, let them know your not going anywhere and the more they fail you - you will be taking it up with the FCA all the way x

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

cheers bill, but I have already spoken to the FOS and whilst they agree there does seem something amiss, due to the dates (1993 & 1998) they cannot take this on.
Don't you worry, I do not intend on giving up on this one at all. cheers for all your help

[Bill-K]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hi guys. The experience I have with these catalogue firms is that they thrive on waffling away with templated replies and fobbing off complaints that way. My view of them (albeit somewhat Chauvinistic, perhaps) is that they rely on the majority of their customers as being unable or unwilling to question or stand up to their intimidating tactics and mindless waffle. Di's perseverence with these firms is an excellent example to follow, but it does make us all ask, "Is it really worth it ?" Well - for those who find all this stuff difficult to deal with, then perhaps it may be too much of a task - and I believe this is what these firms are relying on. But if some of us are able and willing to do battle with them, then I believe that the battle must be fought - for ourselves - and for those who are unable to fight. So - I salute you TJP - for your willingness to pick up the gauntlet, and take up thy sword.

My own humble suggestion at this stage is that you continue with the pressure on Shop Direct - because if you can get them to crack, then you will have shown them that not ALL of their customers are a 'push-over' - and you will also have spared yourself the 18-24 month wait that these claims seem to be subject to, if they are referred to the FOS. If you can let them know that you have some idea of what you're talking about, then perhaps they will realise that you can't be so easily fobbed off - and that it would be best for them if they settle with you. My own suggestion here is that you quote some of the relevant FCA rules to them, and let them know that these are the rules that the FOS will apply. The FOS also direct that a firm pays additional compensation for distress caused by their unreasonable conduct - and I believe that SD are being unreasonable.

My suggestion is that you take another pot-shot at them, and quote the relevant FCA rules - and suggest that this is going to cost them a lot more if they continue along their current path. This should demonstrate to them that you have some idea of what you are talking about - and/or that you know someone who does. It's worth a go, I reckon. Here is the FCA rule about putting you back in the position you would have been...

The FSA Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 states:
DISP APP 3.9.4 The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

I believe that Ken will back me up on this, but the FOS has been ordering lenders to supply more detailed accounts of how PPI redress has been calculated, when that has been requested. You may need to get the FOS to order SD to do this - but they may volunteer that info if you tell them this.

Additionally, the FSA Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 states:
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.

This is the central thrust of your PPI complaint - and of most (if not all) other PPI complaints. You have already referred to this principle, but this is the essential FCA rule.

Finally - you might like to consider threatening them with this one:
DISP APP 3.9.2 In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penal interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender.

This has recently been highlighted by the Beeb's Michael Robinson, and a number of my forum colleagues have posted links to this. These 'Consequential Losses' are covered by the FCA rules in my opinion - and in the opinion of others - and this is a further aspect of PPI that is being investigated by us.

EDIT: I see that our Di has posted a reply while I was 'composing' mine. I think we agree on this - and I believe my post supports Di's suggestions as to the next move, TJP.

And - cheers, Di - you're a good un !!! XXX

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

I would email the CEO and say your not happy the way you have been treated in regards of a recent reclaim (give account number), then say you have a right to have a detailed breakdown on how your refund was calculated etc, but the complaints team refuse to deal with matter as they say they do not have to provide you these details.
I would then go on to say, you are giving them one more time to provide these details by 7 days (from the date of your letter/email), if they fail, you will be making contact with the FCA in regards of their failings and providing the them with the information that proves this....etc...

(keep it simple).....:-)

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

cheers for this di - it seems to answer my query - where do I/we go from here
Any help would be very appreciated.

cheers

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

...........also check this out......

http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documen...s/tr-13-07.pdf

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hiya

You at least deserve a detailed explanation, it makes you wonder why they dont want to do this, maybe you should write to warn them you are considering contacting the FCA on them failing to comply on this "as a right of a customer" xx

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hi di, I have got interest on the ppi premiums, it is the the action of "returning the customer back to where they should have been if it had not been added"
Shop direct are saying that they do not have to explain how they have calculated the interest to me.

[di30]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hiya
Have you tried havng a word with your local MP?

It may also be a good idea as well if you tell them you have spoken to the FOS and all redress should include interest, as you also paid interest within your repayments to them.

I would ask your local MP to help by writing to the CEO if you can, they will want your votes....... hope it works out for you, they are so craftyX

[tjperfick]

Re: PPI redress confusion

Hi all, just to revisit this one. I have been like a dog with a bone on the redress awarded by shop direct.I have written to them countless times and have data going all the way back to 1998. They are still refusing to budge on the interest element awarded and i have even sent letters/emails to the CEO!!.
The main issue being is following the FOS guidlines that I should be put back in the position if I had not taken the PPI out.
I have now even spoken to the FOS, who after listening and reading the documentation and agreeing that how the redress is worked out is not quite right. Only thing was once they found out the dates they have said that they cannot help me. They have directed me to the FLA.
I sent them an email and received a reply saying they cannot help me. I cannot make head or tail of the reasons ine the long email sent back.
Question is, if the FOS are agreeing and saying it doesn't seem quite right, is there any where else I can go with this one. cheers