GE Capital, House of Fraser Sold PPI When I Was A Student

[Scrappy01]

Hi

House of Fraser sold me PPI when I was a student and I'm unsure if I was working or not, but I think I had a 10 hour a week job. I CCA'd to get my application form for something else and when I got it the Employement section isn't filled in. There was also a cross next to the PPI box which I said I was encouraged to sign by the staff member.

I wrote to them pointing out I was possibly unemployed and about the cross. They've basically said s*d off. It says at the top of the form you need to work for 16 hours a week to have the card and you signed the box for PPI and also said I have to prove I was unemployed or under 16 hours a week. Also they said that the policy was sold as non-advised (I've heard this so many times already, am sure its a get out for all banks!!!) This was their final response.

Where next, does anyone think I have a case?

[Scrappy01]

Oh and they also said its been detailed on all my statements....... this is another good one I've heard so many times already. Unsure how to respond to this.

[alanfromderby]

It would be helpful if you can confirm your emplyment situation at the time, as you would need to prove that the policy was unsuitable. Once that is established then misselling has been proved, and it is all downhill from there.

[Scrappy01]

Would wage slips showing the number of hours claimed be sutible. I want to take this to court because they have sent the final letter but my worry is that they could just say well did you have 2 jobs? How can I prove it ultimatly. I've checked my tax allowance (code) forms and I had one in 1997 and June 2000 (when graduated I started a new job) but the account was opened in April 2000. But I feel that they don't prove much.

[alanfromderby]

Do you know what the actual requirement on the PPI policy was?

I would have said that wage slips would be fine - and if the best they could come up with was to argue that you might have had two jobs I think the judge would be suitably unimpressed.

[Scrappy01]

It just states 16 hours a week to have the account and the PPI protects against sickness and involuntary unemployment. Seeing as I didn't work enough hours per week to even have the account if I had been unemployed then I'm sure they wouldn't have paid out. The bit that bothers me is why I didn't fill out the employment details or why I wasn't pulled up for not filling it in!

I had another look through my tax allowances and it states the name of my employer at the time on them. So I think a copy of the tax form and 6 months worth of pay slips and my graduation information should do it. Regardless of the final response should I write to them again or just go straight to court. Do you know of anyone on here that has won PPI back through the courts?

[alanfromderby]

The only thing that concerns me is that the loan was based on you being a student, and I wonder if the terms of PPI would have reflected that. However, in many ways that is their problem since they clearly have not even bothered to check the details.

To be doubly sure, I would suggest a full DSAR (template in the PPI stickies). The only thing you have to bear in mind is that the FOS are unlikely to look at this as it was pre-2005, so you will have to go through the court route.

[Scrappy01]

I should have said it was a House of Fraser store card.

[alanfromderby]

Which makes it all the more likely that it was a generic PPI policy, and was not suitable - it would also stregthen your claim as the person selling the agreement would be unlikely to have been properly trained to sell insurance products.

[Scrappy01]

I've had their final response, so I will send them a letter and attach an LBA them with all the details. I found everything, pay slips showing hours worked and even my bank statements showing the money being paid in, my degree pass letter, my tax forms and even my current job acceptance letter.