Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

[ken100464]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

"less the cost of equivalent PPI cover under a regular premium PPI policy".


Think thats the telling quote leading you to the above alternative redress.

How an earth they can presume you would have done this I dont know. But think thats what they are using.

[ken100464]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Alternative approach to redress: single premium policies

DISP App 3.7.7
01/04/2013
FCA

Where the only breach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume that instead of buying the single premium payment protection contract he bought, the complainant would have bought a regular premium payment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.8
01/04/2013
FCA

If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies.

DISP App 3.7.9
01/04/2013
FCA

Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.10
01/04/2013
FCA

The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.

[ken100464]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Oh dear.

That looks like they have used the alternative method of redress on the defended one.

Something that is creeping in now from some of the banks. Wonder why? Oh of course it reduces the payout. Will see if I can dig something up out of the FCA handbook.

As Capt Oates said " I may be gone some time"

[oscar]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Was the first loan repaid early? - that could be the reason for the lower payment.

With regards to defending one and not the other, they would have been treated as seperate complaints as they were seperate loans. Its pretty standard realy - otherwise people could use the arguement that their next door neighbour got paid out, you didnt and you took your loans oout on the same day - if you see what I mean.

Definately go to FOS if it was front loaded - its not the only issue to look at, but its a main one.

[awp79]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Ok thanks that's good to know. Am I right with the thinking on front loading ppi that its the main weakness for Barclay's argument or is there a bit more science to it than simply the fact that's its not permissible under UK law?

[SXGuy]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

yes thats the correct step to take.

Barclays know that an FOS complant will take around 12 to 18 months for a decision, even if FOS side with you. Its just a time wasting exercise on their part.

[awp79]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Thanks Enforcer, Barclays response with their upheld/defend decision was their "final response". I am now completing the FOS complaint form which I assume is the correct next step to take?

[Enforcer]

Re: Limited success with Barclays Bank (awp79)

Barclays Bank repaid me PPI without any problems.
Barclaycard, initially refused, then after about a year of letter writing, paid up.
They are hoping that you will go away after their refusal. Write to them again until you get to their "final" response, then go to FOS.

[awp79]

Hi, another new thread from me!

My wife has had some recent limited success with a PPI claim form that she completed for two old loans with a payout of over £800 that was recently credited to her account however upon further review it would appear as though Barclay's have Upheld one complaint but chosen to Defend the other.

It is strange as both loans taken a year apart were structured identically (i.e front loaded ppi).

Barclay's give their reason for upholding one of the complaints as:-

"We have found that in this instance a regular premium PPI would have been better suited to your needs. This would have been paid in addition to your monthly loan repayments so you would not have paid interest, whereas single PPI was added as a lump sum to the overall value of the loan"

However they give 10 bullet points for the defended complaint including such responses as:-

1) Your Recollection of the Sale
2) Recordings or Transcripts of phone calls about the sale.
3) Told the PPI was optional.

Firstly, I am interested in the way that Barclay's have calculated the circa £800 refund as mid way through their calculations, they deduct circa £600 for "less the cost of equivalent PPI cover under a regular premium PPI policy".

And secondly, I am interested in any readers comments regarding their decision to Defend a complaint when Front Loaded PPI is involved as from my research on other threads on this website, it would appear as thought Front Loading is a cardinal sin by the banks.

Am I barking up the wrong tree with the above and/or should we be satisfied with the £800 payout?

Barclay's suggest that if my wife is unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, she should contact the FOS within 6 months of the date of the letter.

Just for clarity, the loans were from 2005 and 2006 with front loaded PPI amounts of £907.45 and £954.57 respectively. It is the 2006 complaint that has been upheld with the 2005 complaint being defended.

Thanks in advance for your feedback!