# PTSB Complaints process



## Raging Bull (14 Nov 2012)

I see on another thread that PTSB did not give a final answer on a complaint and so it cant be brought to FSO.

A neighbour of mine has same problem. To me this sounds like its a deliberate ploy and is also in breach of Consumer protection Code.

I have a complaint with PTSB who basically told me to shove it after 1st review of case. No appeal to 2nd level as would appear norm elsewhere. Though they did say goo to ombudsman if not happy.

Whats other peoples experiences theey are supposed to deal with it in good faith and a prescribed process but they seem to run roughshod


----------



## itsallwrong (14 Nov 2012)

Welcome to AAM Mr. Bull

What is the complaint?


----------



## iscritto (14 Nov 2012)

I have seen this happen before .... excuse they used was the person had not requested a final response. 

[broken link removed]


----------



## WizardDr (14 Nov 2012)

As they are a State company they have probably overlooked that a Judicial Review process may be open to determined folk.

That would scare the bejasus out of them and put manners on them


----------



## Raging Bull (17 Dec 2012)

Ok I now got a final answer...heres teh deal the Ombudsman already stated they thought I had a preexisting medical condition so the company that underwrote policy dont have to pay. Now I dispute but it would be silly to go to high Court for such a small amount

I then went after PTSB for misselling which is why the Central Bank forced the industry to look into this.....

their decision is it was not missold and i can go to Ombudsman.

District Court hear I come


----------



## Brendan Burgess (17 Dec 2012)

Hi RB

This is not very clear and you need think to think this through clearly before incurring any expenditure.



> I see on another thread that PTSB did not give a final answer on a complaint and so it cant be brought to FSO.



In most cases it takes a few letters to resolve an issue. I have seen lenders issue a final response in response to an initial complaint which is worse. 

If the Ombudsman has ruled against you, the only avenue of appeal is to the High Court. 

If you have a separate complaint, you could go to the Circuit Court. But I would think that the Ombudsman would be a better option for you.  I set out the reasons in this Key Post

You don't need a solicitor and it's free to you.  It's probably a much fairer, complainant-friendly service. 

Brendan
http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=172435


----------



## Raging Bull (17 Dec 2012)

PTSB sold me the policy...Genworth underwote it. The Ombudsman would not consider if it was missold since only Genworth was on my initial complaint

The Ombudsman said that they feel it was a pre-existing condition so have let Genworth off the hook. If I dispute that I need to go to High court

I can still take a seperate case against PTSB for misselling. This is the easier option at this stage. Its a seperate cause of action.

I have been on to Small claims Court and they are not against taking the claim for "poor provision of service". It would narrow my case in terms of what I can argue since they cant take anything usually with Consumer credit Act  but I can raise issues not related to that i.e poor service and it will only cost €25.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Dec 2012)

Hi Bull

OK, that is a bit clearer.  

Genworth provided an insurance policy.
PTSB sold it to you.

You felt that you had a valid claim.  Genworth rejected it on the grounds that you had a pre-existing condition.  The Ombudsman agreed with Genworth.

You are now arguing that you should have been told about this when ptsb sold you the policy? That it did not cover existing conditions?  It's a tough one as you have already argued that you did not have a pre-existing condition. 

The first step is to make a complaint to ptsb. 
You do not need to request a final response at this stage as the only "appeal" after that is to the Ombudsman. 
See what their response is.  Ask a friend to look at it independently.  Make a final submission to ptsb and ask for a final response. 

You may or may not have a case. It's difficult to accept sometimes that one does not have a case. But it's best to do this early and save everyone time and hassle. 

I hadn't thought of the Small Claims Court for a financial services complaint. If you do use them, let us know how you get on.


----------



## Raging Bull (18 Dec 2012)

Hi brendan,

Yes you were on the ball. This is what happened the FSO ruled in Genworths favour on a preexisting condition. My view is it was not pre-existing as I didnt know about it. I had symptoms but had not been to a doctor. The diagnosis happened 8 months after taking out policy. What I eventually claimed on was a different condition than the presumed pre-existing condition. I dont agree with FSO but im not risking 100,000 to get 2,000. was tempted to but the high court would only send it back and rarely adjudicates

Since FSO said it was prexisting condition I went after PTSB on seperate cause of action for miselling. This is what the Central Bank review is all about, part of it was selling of policies to people with pre-existing conditions. Now I dont agree with FSO but they say its pre-existing.

PTSB have given an answer saying that they feel it was not missold to me. Yet can not evidence how they made me aware if product was suitable for me medically etc...they say they are fully trained to sell these products well the Central Bank does not think so nor did they provide copies of their training records nor anything apart from the usual blurb and hyperbole.

Im going down route of small claims court. I have paid €25. I used them once before and found them easier to deal with than FSO. It will be quicker than FSO too. Sure it may end up in District Court and its hassle but its not the point. I paid for something I cant claim on and I have tried to cancel it and they want me to pay a cancelation fee to rub salt into the wounds.


----------



## Time (18 Dec 2012)

It is likely the small claims registrar will not allow your claim to proceed.


----------



## Raging Bull (18 Dec 2012)

I did ask them in advance and they were not averse to it as long as it was a customer service twist

They cant look at agreements contracted under the Consumer Credit Act 95. My loan to take the policy is but the proposal form for acceptance does not say anything about it.

I think its admissible but as I said earlier my complaint gets narrowed by going small claims route


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> It is likely the small claims registrar will not allow your claim to proceed.



Hi Time

That is interesting. I simply had never considered the Small Claims Court for a financial services claim. 

What are their guidelines on this? 

Are they prevented from hearing such a claim? 
In what circumstances might they hear a claim? 

Brendan


----------



## Raging Bull (18 Dec 2012)

My understanding is you could not do something that involved credit. As that would involve Consumer Credit Act which they cant look at. Loans, Credit Cards, Leasehold agreements

I had an interest free loan to pay premium so they could not look at that element just the sales process and customer service element.

PTSB sold me a service to introduce me to Genworth on a policy. That being deficient they can look at. Same way you as for a plumbing job and it goes pear shaped.

I am limiting what I can complain about though so there is a downside. Id rather pay 25 euro and get this heard in District court if needs be.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Dec 2012)

Raging Bull said:


> . Id rather pay 25 euro and get this heard in District court if needs be.



Surely you would also be liable for ptsb's costs if you lose?


----------



## Time (19 Dec 2012)

Not in small claims. Neither side can get costs.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Dec 2012)

Time said:


> Not in small claims. Neither side can get costs.



High Time

I understood that Raging Bull wants to go to the District Court for only €25. 

Brendan


----------



## Time (19 Dec 2012)

He seems confused.


----------



## Raging Bull (19 Dec 2012)

Its 25 for Small Claims which is a division of District Court

Process below

*Failure to resolve a claim*

*If the Small Claims Registrar fails to resolve the claim*

If the Small Claims Registrar is unable to bring about a settlement he/she will bring the case to the District Court for, if requested to do so, for a hearing before a District Court judge.
*The Small Claims Registrar may call both parties to his/her office*

The meeting will be informal and private.
The Small Claims Registrar will probably ask you and the respondent to outline the facts.
He/she may question both parties in an effort to clarify the issues.
If an agreement cannot be reached the Small Claims Registrar may there and then fix a date, time and location for a hearing of the claim before a judge of the District Court.
The date and time of the hearing and the address of the courthouse will be sent to both parties by post.
*The District Court hearing*

You must attend the District Court hearing.
Note: The court environment is formal. If you are not familiar with the court process, you should familiarise yourself with the layout, court practice and operation of the court in advance of the hearing.
On the court day remember to bring with you documentary evidence supporting your claim, for example letters, receipts, invoices.
The case will be heard in public as part of a normal sitting of the District Court.
Evidence must be given under oath or affirmation and the respondent can question you on matters relating to your claim (called cross-examination).
The judge may require the Small Claims Registrar to assist the court at the hearing.
When your case is called the Court Registrar will call you to the witness box to give evidence.
The Respondent will also be given an opportunity to give evidence.
Each witness can be subject to cross examination by the opposing party or their legal representatives.
*Engaging a solicitor*

You may engage a solicitor at your own cost. The respondent may do likewise.
The whole point of this procedure is that you can bring a claim without using a solicitor.
If you do engage one you will have to meet his/her costs even if you win your case.
*Engaging a witness*

You can bring a witness, but if expenses are incurred you will have to pay those yourself.
If you think it necessary, in your own interest, to have an expert's report you will have to pay for this. Expert reports and witness expenses must be paid for by you.
Likewise, if the respondent calls experts or witnesses he/she will be liable for their costs, if any.
*If a witness does not agree to attend*

The Small Claims Registrar will, if you request and pay the small requisite fee, prepare and issue a witness summons on your behalf requiring a witness to attend the hearing.
The Small Claims Registrar will arrange service of the summons.
You will be obliged to pay for any financial loss incurred by the witness in attending court, if claimed
*If the matter is decided in your favour*

If the matter is resolved in your favour, the respondent will be notified of the court's decision a few days after the hearing and will be allowed approximately 4 weeks to pay the amount awarded by the court.
*Appealing the decision of the District Court*

Both the applicant and the respondent have the right to appeal an order of the District Court to the Circuit Court.
Costs may be awarded by the Circuit Court but that is a matter for the individual Circuit Court judge to decide.


----------



## Raging Bull (19 Dec 2012)

By going down this route I can just get my Premium back as contract would be declared void breach being breach uberiade fides (mutuality of good faith), breaches of consumer protection code etc......I cant get the payout on the policy enforced i would have to appeal the FSO decision to High Court for that

So the maths are €25 to get €1580 premium returned via small claims, or risk €100,000 to get 2,200 policy payout in  High Court


----------



## Raging Bull (28 Dec 2012)

Just to let everyone know the Small Claims Court have accepted the claim on basis service bought was not provided. They confirmed apart from 25 euros there is nno costs unless district court decision was appealed to circut court


----------



## ABank (9 Jan 2013)

well done and thanks for keeping us informed of the outcome


----------



## Raging Bull (5 Apr 2013)

This was settled via small claims court the bank admitted it had no paperwork to show it was sold to me correctly on medical grounds. it was 25 euro well spent and a lot easier than going down FSO route


----------



## Gerry Canning (9 Apr 2013)

The Small Claims court will NOT look at the Hire Purchase/lease agreements , BUT the PPI is a service separate from the (loan) . I checked in my local Small Claims court.On any PPI sold since April 2007 ie within 6 years ,The Small claims court will look at it. .Should the Bank lose in small claims court I would think the Bank willl pay out as the Bank appeals I would think any wise Judge would hit them for Court costs.


----------



## Gerry Canning (27 May 2013)

Raging Bull said:


> Just to let everyone know the Small Claims Court have accepted the claim on basis service bought was not provided. They confirmed apart from 25 euros there is nno costs unless district court decision was appealed to circut court


Raging Bull..Correct me if need be.
1. Claim on Genworth on non payout. Fso found against you , so forget about it.

Your MAIN claim is on the SELLER of the PPI ,namely ptsb.
2. Claim on SELLER of policy Ptsb.If policy was sold since 1stJuly 2007 you should be under the Central Banks ,(belated)and yet unproven review.
If it is  before that, still put claim to Ptsb Customer Section ,Churchyard lane ,Douglas Cork.  It is up to the SELLER to explain clearly the exclusions etc.
If you send me your E-mail I will send you a questionnaire that covers most grounds.
One of the big niggles on ppi is not the miss-sell ,just the multitude of exclusions. In fairness this non disclosure falls on the SELLER not Genworth.!!


----------



## Raging Bull (27 May 2013)

I resolved this through small claims court as PTSB could not show any paperwork to demonstrate it was correctly sold to me


----------

