Lost PPI case

G

Gerry Canning

Registered User
Messages
2,502
á mon avis said:
From the FSO site -
What is the role of the Financial Services Ombudsman?

The Financial Services Ombudsman is a statutory officer who deals independently with complaints from consumers about their individual dealings with all financial services providers that have not been resolved by the providers.
The Ombudsman is therefore the arbiter of unresolved disputes and is impartial.
It is a free service to the complainant. Broader issues of consumer protection are the responsibility of the Irish Financial Regulator.

Based on your post I would take it that the FSO acted in an "impartial" fashion as per its description and should never "be on the side of the little person" or anyone for that matter.
Click to expand...
.............................................................................
Had a PPI case via Ombudsman. Consumer could prove in writing that the Bank had failed as a Regulated Entity on 2 important issues. The Ombudsman was forced to accept these WRITTEN facts.
However on 4 points that were verbally in dispute with (stressed) customer versus unnamed Bank official , our Ombudsman accepted that Bank had policy in place !!!and accepted Banks version on these 4 !!!
I would have thought that if consumer had shown 2 written flaws he would get hearing on verbal flaws.
I think we would all like to have faith in Ombudsman.
Remember , just because someone says they are impartial ,does not mean they are.
I and others have serious issues over our (impartial) Ombudsman !!
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi salmon

Do you want to set out the details in a case study format?
Click to expand...
..........................................................................................

I will do a case study on a (worse) one. Am awaiting written verification of what I was told.
The gist is
1. Lender told Ombudsman customer had signed for PPI.
2. Lender then admitted ,customer hadn,t signed.
3. Lender then claimed customer agreed ppi over the phone.
4. Lender produced no phone,or computer lines to show verbal acceptance.

Customer was refunded 500 of 2500 ???

Seems very strange to me .
As I say I want good confirmation before I start (shooting) at the Ombudsman.

Thanks .
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi salmon

Do you want to set out the details in a case study format?
Click to expand...
............................................................................................
Finding of the OMBUDSMAN on a MAY 2013 case.re MBNA now Avantcard.
..................................................................
MIS-SOLD PPI CLAIM via OMBUDSMAN

Customers case.

1. Self-employed so should not have been sold ppi.

2. Totally Unaware ppi had been added to his account.

The Banks case.

1. According to its records PPI was applied @ the customers request.

2.At the time ppi was added he was eligible for cover.

3.It did not offer advice , all they did was give information ie a non-advised sale.

Finding and comments of Ombudsman.

In the Banks Final Response Dec 2012 it advised that the Complainant completed an application form for ppi. However in April 2013 the Bank informed that the policy was sold over the telephone.

1. There is no transcript of the sale call .
2. Avant employed a 3rd party to forward policy documents so cannot confirm if Terms were sent.
3. Ombudsman states.The fact remains there is no clear evidence to confirm what information the customer was given in the absense of call recording.
4. Ombudsman accepts Avant has not complied with Consumer Protection Code 2006.
5. Ombudsman accepts Avant has not complied with Ec Regulations on (distance marketing)
6. Ombudsman states quote {Although the 2004 Regulations require the Bank to supply a copy of the policy,it must be clarified ....that a breach of the regulations will not mean that the contract is void from inception.}end quote.

Quote from Ombudsman .
{whilst I find that the Bank has not met its regulatory obligations to evidence that it supplied the Complainant with all the terms of the policy in July 2007} {It is clear from the Banks screenshots of contemporaneous system notes ..that a call was made by Complainant on 22nd Nov 2010}

{I am satisfied that the Complainant was eligible to make a valid claim ..regardless of the fact he was self-employed}

{it is my view that this policy was not mis-sold. That said in view of the fact that the Bank failed to furnish satisfactory evidence to this office of providing relevant terms and condtions at policy inception 500 to complainant.
This award also takes into account the fact that the Bank issued a Final Rsponse letter on 13th Dec 2012 containing inaccurate misleading information }

Would anyone care to comment ?
 
salmon9077 said:
............................................................................................

Would anyone care to comment ?
Click to expand...

Oh yes Salmon, I most certainly would. I had nearly word for word the same case with the ombudsman about a bank, a policy (not ppi) and got nowhere.

Absolutely furious I am.

And in the very end of it all the bank acnowledged that I was missold the policy. I also got hit by the 6 year rule. Also bank could provide no paper or other evidence of the policy being put in place, in my case I have a copy of it.
 
Bronte said:
Oh yes Salmon, I most certainly would. I had nearly word for word the same case with the ombudsman about a bank, a policy (not ppi) and got nowhere.

Absolutely furious I am.

And in the very end of it all the bank acnowledged that I was missold the policy. I also got hit by the 6 year rule. Also bank could provide no paper or other evidence of the policy being put in place, in my case I have a copy of it.
Click to expand...
.............................................................................................
As we write the 6 year rule is with the Law Reform Commission.
Td,s Durkan/Mc Hugh Fine gael have got this now raised in Cabinet.
Td Mc Grath Fianna Fail is putting in a private members bill.
Do not give up yet.
...........................................................................................
On the one I got information on .
What is the point in Regulation ,if there is no penalty ?
What is the point in Codes , if they can be effectively ignored?
The Bank claim they didn,t sell !! they only advise !!! and our Ombudsman believed that ?
What WORRIES me is that people believe in Ombudsman ??
On any small case go to District Court.I don,t see ANY Judge accepting
1. This was not giving advice.
2. They gave wrong info.
3. THey broke various codes.
You couldn,t make it up !!!!

Am I missing something in this ?
 
Bronte said:
The change to the 6 year rule cannot be backdated.
Click to expand...
.................................................................................................

As in the Uk , we can change it to allow any consumer to re-claim for 3 years from when they become aware of a mis-sell.
eg If in 2013 customer realizes he was mis-sold on a policy bought in 2004. he will have 3 years from 2013 to progress the claim.

{is the above what you meant by backdated?}
Regards.Salmon.
 
Salmon very kindly sent me the full Ombudsman's report.

I have to agree with the Ombudsman's finding on this.

1) The company's records showed that the claimant was employed when the policy was taken out. ( It's not clear to me if the complainant disputes this?)
2) In any event, self-employed people can claim under the policy. "I am satisfied that the Complainant was eligible to submit a claim"
3) While the claimant was not aware that he had taken out PPI, he received 68 monthly statements which showed a clear deduction for PPI.
4) Although the 2004 Distance Selling regulations require the company to supply a copy of the policy, the Regulations do not provide that a breach of the regulations makes the contract void from inception


MBNA may have mis-sold this policy, I don't know if they did or not.
However, the time to complain was within a few statements showing that PPI was deducted.

If the claim was made within a few months, it is more likely that MBNA would be able to provide documents to show that it was properly sold. If they could not prove that it was properly sold, I would order a refund of premiums.

MBNA did make mistakes in the way they handled this complaint. I don't think that these mistakes mean that the whole policy should be voided. I think that the award of €500 was generous to the complainant.

I discovered to my horror that I was being charged for receiving premium texts for a few months. They were set out clearly on my o2 bill but I hadn't been reading it as the overall amount looked ok. I got a full refund. But if I had waited almost 6 years to complain, I don't think I would have a case.

I saw another Ombudsman's case where an investor had told the advisor that he did not want a geared fund. But the policy statement and annual statements were clear that the guy had invested in a geared fund. I don't think he had any case, but the Ombudsman, incorrectly in my opinion, found that he had been missold and ordered partial compensation.

Brendan
 
I disagree Vehemently with Brendan on this.

1. When ppi is added to an account it tracks the account balance, so initially it costs say 50p.
2. It rises with the balance on he card to say 9.50.
3. Times are good and customer takes it as some type of charge.

I readily accept customer should check ,

But.

. A regulated entity is supposed to be governed by legislation that was brought in to stop customers being stupid or being conned.
In this case.
A. Mbna told FSO that customer had signed for ppi, when customer had not.Ombudsman accepts no contract signed.
3. Mbna then told FSO it was verbal.They produced no recording, again no contract.
4. Under legislation Mbna must keep that verbal contract record.

And,
The Fso seems to have found for customer on narrow terms ,in that Mbna could not prove customer had received the Terms & Conditions.
The Ombudsman has effectively ignored clear breaches by Mbna of Consumer Codes and legislation.

Lest anyone be in any doubt,

The Consumer Legislation was brought in to protect consumers interests , even from their own stupidity. Regulated Entities to be permitted to sell ppi are Required to operate within that code.
If they can ignore it,as in this case ,what is the Point of Financial Ombudsman or indeed the Consumers Code.

In relation to customer being able to claim as self-employed.
He can only maybe get a claim if he completely closes his business, gets it verified via accountant , gets that verified by Revenue, gets social welfare to give him assistance etc. Most self-employed go from say 5 vans to 1 van etc .The whether you can actually claim is another thread !!!

Any more views?
 
Last edited:
1. When ppi is added to an account it tracks the account balance, so initially it costs say 50p.
2. It rises with the balance on he card to say 9.50.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this at all.

Is the following statement by the FSO correct or incorrect?

"The Bank notes that the PPI premium was clearly marked on each of the Complainant's monthly statements, of which there were approximately 68 issued between July 2007 and 9 April 2013"

Was the PPI premium shown separately from the interest charge?
Was it designated as "PPI" or "insurance premium"?

As the FSO says in his finding

"I am conscious that the Complainant failed to request details of the PPI although he was on notice of the existence of it by way of monthly account statements. Furthermore I am conscious that the Complainant contacted the Bank on 22 November 2010 with regard to the change of insurer"

What is this "change of insurer" about?

I think that PPI is a terrible policy.
I think that it's very hard to make a claim on it.

Maybe they should not be allowed to sell it over the phone? I am not sure. It's very convenient for a customer to be able to transact business or switch suppliers over the phone. So I would be slow to ban it.

If you were notified 68 times that you had PPI, I don't really think you can come back now and say you didn't know you had it.
The Consumer Legislation was brought in to protect consumers interests , even from their own stupidity.
Click to expand...

I don't think it was. I think that it redresses the balance between customer and supplier but it does not absolve the customer from all responsibility.

Fool me once, shame on your. Fool me 68 times...
 
Brendan Burgess said:
3) While the claimant was not aware that he had taken out PPI, he received 68 monthly statements which showed a clear deduction for PPI.
Click to expand...

Surely the fact he was not aware he had taken out the PPI is the real issue here?

Many people do not look at their bank statements, they should of course. But because they don't, should they be liable if the deductions should not have been made in the first place.

If the deductions should not have been taken, then it's the fault of the organisation who took them. Surely they have a higher duty of care than the ordinary layman.
 
I don't think that consumers can wash their hands of all responsibility.

If he noticed something wrong after, say three months, he should have been refunded in full.

In this case, he says he doesn't remember taking out PPI or says that he did not take out PPI.

They have a note saying that he agreed to take it out.

Given the 68 reminders, I think the Ombudsman made a decision generous to the complainant.

If it transpired that there was a systematic fraudulent policy in MBNA of charging people for PPI when they did not buy it, then he would be entitled to some refund.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I don't think that consumers can wash their hands of all responsibility.

If he noticed something wrong after, say three months, he should have been refunded in full.

In this case, he says he doesn't remember taking out PPI or says that he did not take out PPI.

They have a note saying that he agreed to take it out.

Given the 68 reminders, I think the Ombudsman made a decision generous to the complainant.

If it transpired that there was a systematic fraudulent policy in MBNA of charging people for PPI when they did not buy it, then he would

Again with respect Brendan , you just cannot seem to get your head around the scale of this blatent miss-sell.
Regards salmon.
.
Click to expand...
.............................................................................................
Brendan , With respect; Lenders sold ppi in the same way as in uk. It has been WELL proven that a huge % were at best suspect. Are you seriously saying Roi lenders are different?
There is NO way the Uk authorities would have admonished lenders unless there was a well proven case of wrongdoing.
Put aside our Financial savvy knowledge and place yourself into the normal punters position v Bank.
The REGULATIONS were brought in to protect consumers. The Central Bank Review is ONLY called BECAUSE Banks cannot be trusted.

PLEASE review the genesis of the realisation of the scope and blatent breath of this issue in Uk , then use the fool me once argument.
 
Hi Salmon

I would think that person is entitled to a refund of their premiums if they were sold a policy under which they could never claim. Even if they consciously bought PPI and even if they knew that they were paying for it every month, then they are entitled to a refund.

If a person was not aware that they had bought PPI, and the amount they were paying was somehow hidden in the monthly payment, then they may have a case for a refund.

But if they could claim on the policy and if it's shown separately on the statement every month, I just don't think that there is a case.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Salmon

I would think that person is entitled to a refund of their premiums if they were sold a policy under which they could never claim. Even if they consciously bought PPI and even if they knew that they were paying for it every month, then they are entitled to a refund.

If a person was not aware that they had bought PPI, and the amount they were paying was somehow hidden in the monthly payment, then they may have a case for a refund.

But if they could claim on the policy and if it's shown separately on the statement every month, I just don't think that there is a case.
Click to expand...
......................................................................................
On the vast majority of PPI policies it is nearly impossible to claim on (no work) issues .
So under the Consumer Code , providers MUST not mislead.
Also providers MUST ensure they keep copies/recordings of any claimed sale.
We can both get tied into your (Devils Advocate) and my (certainty) !!!

But I would suggest we work off the Rules as per the Consumer Code 2006.
...........................................................................................
If the Financial Services Ombudsman continues to permit providers to decide which parts providers can conform to , why would any consumer go to the OMBUDSMAN?

Worryingly I know of one large claims company who are now ignoring the Ombudsman and going legal route on cases.
If that transpires, there is No way consumers can win within the Statute Times . Also FEW consumers will face court.
regards, Salmon
 
Try these two.
Ombudsman and AIB declined claim Dec 2012.
Reviewer has found for customers in these cases.

Either the 2006 Consumer Code is unclear.
Either AIB misread it.
Either Ombudsman misread it.
Either Reviewer mis read it.
Which is it?
I ask would a sane customer proceed without sane customer @ least feeling they have a case. If CLARITY as per consumer Code WAS given , why would sane customer claim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top