I received the same standard response today:
Thank you for your email to Alison Rose. As a member of the PPI Executive Concerns Team I have been asked to look into matters for you.

We are considering the judgment and potential next steps. We will confirm our position in due course.

If there’s anything else I can help with, please let me know.

Kind regards

John Hutcheon

Case Officer

PPI Executive Concerns Team

CDD & Remediation Operations, Shared Services

RBS, 5th Floor (Green 2), 1 Hardman Boulevard, Manchester, M3 3AQ

I have sent off an email to Alison Rose but I also contacted the FOS this morning and after a good 10 minute wait on hold, I was given an update.

There are many cases similar to mine, when they wrote to me in August with their decision, they ruled it was fair and reasonable for RBS to use the money to off set historical debt.

Since then, they are aware of the court case and subsequent ruing by Lord Glennie, however, the FOS opinion and therefor position remains the same as before.

Looks like that route is a dead end now.

Thanks for sharing this information kdyguy.

The Ombudsman usually looks to put disadvantaged consumers back in the position they were in before a problem occured. In this instance there's really no loss I suppose, because if RBS had paid out it should have gone into the trust deed rather than to the consumer.

I can see where they might be coming from with this (though there are obviously strong arguments against this position as well).

Hi TDA

Can I ask if the FOS are recommending that the PPI be set off against the trust deed? Can RBS do this?

Thanks

Hi Angibabes.

I don't think that's what they're doing.

I think they've simply been rejecting complaints that RBS should pay a PPI claim to the complainant.

I think, and its my opinion only, that there may be a legal argument that if the last source of complaint at the time(FOS) declared in favour of the RBS, i feel that this is the end of the line for anyone who got a decision from the FOS. This is the reason i never went to FOS, as at the time all my complaints would have ended. The court decision may affect this, however i feel it may be another legal get out for RBS?

Kayak. The decision off the fos it not legally binding. You don't have to agree with anything they decide. If RBS decide to not appeal and pay out you will be entitled to challenge them. As legally you never had a debt for them to set off the payment against. You just have to bide your time the same as everyone else.

Hjaw

Hi All, getting a bit annoyed by the lack of clarity in the outcome of the Allison Donnelly case, which this forum thread is effectively based on. Does anyone know if there has been a settlement regarding this, or are we into another tenure of deliberating by lawyers perpetuating our frustrations?

Bill

Hi All, just me again. re-read the Herald review of the case and it would appear that there is no financial settlement at that time, however, things may have changed!

Urrgh

"was"

Hi Duckbill,

I think others have been told that RBS is considering its position in light of the outcome of this case.

That's normal, given that there appear to be several options open to them.

Hopefully we'll learn more soon.

Hi sorry I will have to disagree . Letter from rbs clearly stated if the final decision of the courts is the bank is not entitled to apply set-off and that any payment should be made to former debtor I've read court ruling handed down . Only place I'm going is to a lawyer with this letter and a copy off court outcome .

That’s your right Colin and we’ll all wish you well.

I’m not sure we’re disagreeing though?

Might be worth standing back for a short while, avoiding solicitor costs, to see if RBS decides to accept the outcome of this case and move on. 100% your decision though.

Is the issue not that RBS could now decide to take it to the Supreme Court? Have I picked this up wrong?

This option is open to RBS.

There's no guarantee that the Supreme Court would accept the case if they attempted to do this though.