MBNA negative response - Should I still proceed?

[ollie*bollie]

We have just received a response from MBNA following our request for PPC premiums to be refunded as my partner is and was self-employed at the time he took the card out.

 

They sent a copy of his original application which he had ticked, so their response is that:

 

a) he requested the cover

b) confirming that even though he was self-employed he would still be eligble for the PPC however, certain criteria must be met in order to claim

c)since the policy was applied updated versions of PPC T&C's had been issued and were sent in May 2003/November 2005 and Jan 2007 - this provided him with an opportunity to discuss details of the policy with them.

d)PPC premiums are clearly shown on the monthly statements and it is the customers responsibility to check each statement and contact them should they dispute any transactions

e)the cover is optional and could have been cancelled at any time - but no previous requests were made to cancel it but they have cancelled it now

 

They conclude with hoping we find their response acceptable and have now exhausted their complaints procedure so this is their final response to the matter and we should contact the FOS but because the account was opened in 2000 it is outside the time-limits for referral to the FOS.

 

The letter is from Gail Powell - Vice President

 

I would be very grateful to understand whether we should walk away or is there any chance we could pursue as the amount paided over the years runs into thousands of pounds.

 

Many thanks

[Toffee Penny]

Hi there

 

I just wanted to let you know that I recently wrote to MBNA for the exact same reason; OH being self employed and now requesting a full refund.

 

Gail Powell replied to us with the EXACT same letter you had and even included OH application form and said the exact same, however I noticed that the tick on the application was different to all the other ticks on the form so we sent her a strong letter asking to see the original to confirm the different coloured ticks.

 

No reply to my letter so I sent for a Subject Access Request and still waiting for the reply.

 

I would urge you to fight on til the end, only now MBNA come at you with self employed were covered BUT certain criteria had to be met.

 

Oh really?

 

Well MBNA didn't tell OH about the exclusions after they received his application form with the self employed box ticked.

 

Keep at them, its obvious MBNA are trying to fob us off with their standard letter as we have both received the same one.

 

When we receive the SAR documents we will probably write one more time to Customer Services NOT Gail Powell and give them 14 days to respond, if they do not reply then we have no choice but to go to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

We have recently sent letters out to reclaim ppi, so far we have had successes with Halifax card and loan and Monument. Don't give up hope they want you to do that to avoid paying out. We have strong cases with being self employed and they know that they just don't want to admit it as it will cost them £1000s and by the way OH account opened in 2001 too.

 

Will keep in touch and let you know how we get on and I'll look out for your updates on here

 

Good Luck xx

[Guest Gordons Barking]

Keep plugging away if it is not specifically in the contract that he signed they can not prove anything so you have a case under The Misrepresentation Act 1967, which obliged the defendant to prove they did not misrepresent. Also there is no time limit as you only recently became aware of your right due to publicity about PPI's the 6 years starts then. Banks lie and obscure the truth - get used to it ;¬)

[ollie*bollie]

Many thanks for the responses - I have today sent them another letter

 

I am writing in response to your letter dated 20 February 2009, with regards the insurance sold with my credit card. Your reference is 160273/AJ.

 

I do not feel your letter has offered a satisfactory justification that my policy was sold fairly, reasonably and within my best interests so I request that you look into my complaint again. If I do not receive a more favorable response within 14 days I shall be taking my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman.

 

So I will see what response I get from that and if necessary take the complaint up with the FOS.

 

Gordons Barking - I'm not entirely sure what you meant in the first line of your post - could you clarify for me please.

 

Many thanks

Ollie Bollie

[ollie*bollie]

Having looked closer at the copy of the application form MBNA provided it would seem that the tick for the PPC is different to the other ones on the form.

 

Should I send a request for the original and if so, do I state in the letter my reasoning behind it?

 

Look forward to receiving advice - this is my first PPI reclaim so want to make sure I do things right.

 

Ollie Bollie

[tiger33]

hi,i,ve sent my complaint off to the fso in august regarding the same issues as you,i,am still waiting for it to be handled,i got the same letter off mbna as you so here are a few points to help you.

(1) this is a case the fso up held regarding a self employed man.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/71/71-payment-protection-complaints.htm

Mr D had a small shop specialising in interior design. His complaint concerned the single-premium payment protection policy he had been sold when he took out a personal loan. He thought the business concerned should have realised the policy was unsuitable for him, as he was self-employed and therefore entitled to only a limited number of benefits under the policy.

When the business refused to refund all the premiums he had paid, plus interest, Mr D brought his complaint to us.

complaint upheld

We noted that the benefits available to self-employed policyholders were more limited than those available to employees. In particular, the redundancy benefit was only available to policyholders if their employer had ceased trading or had been declared insolvent. We accepted Mr D’s view that these terms were likely to make the policy less attractive to someone who was self-employed.

In this particular case, although the business clearly knew that Mr D was self-employed, it had not mentioned that this would limit the benefits he could get under the policy. The business had given him a written summary of the policy benefits. However, we did not consider that this leaflet adequately highlighted the limited cover he would get from the policy.

We concluded that the business had not given Mr D sufficient information to enable him to make an informed choice.

We upheld the complaint. We told the business to put the loan back where it would have been if he had not taken the policy, and to refund all of his payments for the policy, with interest.

(2)mbna wrote that it had clearly shown on my statements each month.

Once again I will refer to the fso news issue 71 aug 08 http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/71/71-payment-protection-complaints.htm

A trainee chef, Mr A, complained about the way in which he was sold a payment protection policy when he applied for a credit card. He said he had understood he was being insured, but had not been told that the policy was optional.

He said he was not given any information about the cost or benefits of the policy. And he stated that a representative of the credit card company had simply filled in the application form for him, written a small ‘x’ at the bottom of the form, and then asked him to sign his name next to the ‘x’.

The credit card company rejected his complaint. It said it was clear from the application form that the insurance policy was optional and that Mr A had chosen to take it. The company also said that the insurance premiums were itemised on Mr A’s credit card statement each month, so he must have been aware that he was paying for an additional – optional – product.

complaint upheld

We asked the credit card company to send us Mr A’s application form. We noted that on the final page, close to the space for the customer’s signature, there was a ‘tick box’ next to a statement that the customer wanted payment protection insurance. This had been ticked.

The tick in the box, the written details entered on the form, and the small ‘ x’ placed next to the signature all appeared to have been written in the same handwriting, using a ballpoint pen. However, the signature itself looked markedly different and had been written with a thick, felt-tipped pen. This tended to support Mr A’s account of events.

We also noted that Mr A had been 19 years of age at the time of the sale. This was the first time he had applied for any financial product or service other than a basic bank account.

We did not agree with the credit card company that it was clear from the application form that the insurance cover was optional. Nor did we agree that, by signing the form, Mr A had clearly indicated his wish to buy the policy. There was no evidence that he had been told anything about the cover at the time of the sale. And the fact that Mr A’s statement showed that the premium was collected monthly did not mean he must have been aware the insurance was optional.

just go to the fso after their final response as mbna will just fob you off for another 6 weeks like they did me,get your complaint in now cos fso are snowed under at the moment with ppi claims

[Guest Gordons Barking]

Have a read through the sticky threads at the head of the PPI section to understand The Misrepresentation Act the case law associated with the act can be applied to a PPI when the bank was acting as an insurance agent (selling the PPI) and so should have informed you that the PPI could be bought from another provider AND puts the burden of proof on them to show by written record signed and dated by you on the original contract, that this was done