I had a capital one Platinum card on which i paid PPI

- i used the templates from the Martin Lewis pages to complain

was rejected on the grounds that when I transferred a balance to this card in march 2000 i ticked a box to request PPI.

They attached a photocopy of the said form showing this box 'ticked'

- however I had had the card for a couple of years before transferring this balance and had not had PPI

(as far as I am aware but I don't have records going back to those dates) and would not therefore have specifically requested this on a balance transfer.

Their argument is that I selected it,

the information was there

and I had a 30 day cooling off period in which to cancel it.

Unfortunately this decision was also upheld by the ombudsman.

I am aware that I can not revisit this although I am annoyed about this

I phoned them yesterday to enquire about the Plevin vs Paragon case to raise a claim for overpaid commission and was told by their representative that I would have had a letter if I qualified.

Is there any way to find out what rate of commission Capital One was receiving and how do I go about making a claim in the event it was greater than 50%?

was the tickbox typed or hand?

was the tickbox typed or hand?

It was a 'Short Application Form' and the tickbox was filled in by hand

application forms are not agreements.

who did it

was it pre ticked by a rep or you did it expand...

have you sent them and sar before you even started the PPI claim let alone a plevin claim?

I am not sure what you mean by a SAR

- I had tried unsuccessfully to claim missold PPI in June 2015

- which they rejected as they advised that I had entered into a non advised sale and had selected the box for PPI

- they produced a photocopy of the form to support this,

this tick was manually added in a printed box

however I have no recollection of selecting this box as I had previously not requested or needed PPI.

I took my complaint to the FOS who in sep 2016 upheld in favour of Capital One.

They did however advise in a letter dated April 2017 that there may be a further avenue to recover some of this money due to the Plevin vs Paragon ruling.

As a result of this I revisited the paperwork and found that the Short Application was not actually for a new card but to transfer a balance (at their invitation) to an existing card which I am 99.9% certain that I was not paying PPI on.

I am not sure whether this would have made any difference but the bottom line is that based on the original information the FOS does not believe it was missold.

On re-reading the final decision letter from Capital One

I became aware there are some statements about the sale which I find questionable

- they state that at the point of 'applying for the card' in March 2000

(which is incorrect - I was requesting a balance transfer from another credit card to my existing account with them in response to a invitation letter from them which appears to show a different account/reference number)

I had selected the box to advise that I wished to apply PPI to my account,

I had already held my account with them for around 12 months prior to this which I believe was not subject to PPI.

They claim that:

"you purchased PPI at the point of applying for a credit card with Capital One"

(this as stated was incorrect I was not applying for a card)

and that on acceptance of the application details of the terms conditions and full policy containing details about cooling off was then sent to me

- which I have no recollection of receiving.

They also advise that my postal application contained details about the cost of PPI,

however as already stated this was in response to an invitation from Capital One to carry out a balance transfer at 0% interest which I am fairly certain did not contain any documentation to this effect.

The final statement also refers to a non advised sale which means that they had no obligation to check my suitability/eligibility/existing cover/alternative policies/demands and needs/or disclose any benefit or additional information in relation to commission paid to the sellers.

I feel very annoyed that they seem to have introduced a loophole where they were able to stealthily introduce this policy based on completion of a form for a transaction on an existing account, and that the ruling appears to have been based on the provision of documentation which would have been appropriate to an application for a new account.

I appreciate that it is not now possible to revisit the initial PPI claim in light of the additional information

but I now wonder if the statement about this being a Non Advised sale may also preclude me from pursuing a claim based on the Plevin judgement.

When I called Capital One a couple of days ago their representative in the PPI claims department advised that if I was eligible I would have had a letter,

however this is not the case.

While I am disappointed not be be able to recover the PPI paid over the 9 years from the balance transfer in March 2000 to October 2009,

when I realised I was paying it and cancelled the policy,

I would like to think I could recover at least some of it via the Plevin ruling.

an sar gets you all the documentation and everything they hold on YOU

inc letters phone calls, statements etc everything.

I would be minded to do that.

theres nothing to stop a new claim with new info regarding the PPI mis-sale.

likewise plevin has no relevance to if/if not the PPI was a non advised sale or not

it solely hinges upon the fact of how much commission they pocketed.

but it will be a win on one or the other not both.

either a new PPI mis-sale claim will win

or a plevin claim will win.

pers I think the sar will be the key to all this

Great - thank you