Egg online ppi. 2 years later f-ombudsmen decision.

[master99]

Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my

i would like to say first when dealing with this it is very draining, furthermore from the get go, the adjudicator from the financial ombudsmen named "....", was on the side of Egg from the start, her attitude towards me her tone of voice was wrong, furthermore when speaking on the phone she was defending egg that's when i knew she had already made her decision

 

Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ..... Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as far as i am concerned they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them.

 

 

 

The adjudicator "....." gives her reasoning to not uphold my complaint! Which in my view is very poor and weak

 

 

Adjudicator "....." STATEMENT WORD FOR WORD!...

 

 

I have carefully considered all the information that you and Egg have provided. I have set out my findings below:

 

 

• I accept Egg may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy to you and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if Egg had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because I think it more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy had you understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim.

 

 

• Egg has confirmed that the CRP options were not pre-selected and you were presented with the following two options as part of the online process in applying for your card;

 

Yes, I would like to protect my repayments against accident, sickness and unemployment. (I understand that by clicking on this box I confirm that I have read and agree to the terms of the repayment protection policy.)

 

No, I do not wish to protect my repayment and I understand that it will be my responsibility to keep up my repayments if I fall ill or lose my job.

 

You would need to actively select 'yes' on the online application to take out the CRP. I have enclosed a copy of this page for your reference which has been supplied to us by Egg. I have also enclosed a copy of application history which shows the level of payment protection cover selected at the time of the application.

 

 

• You indicated that you were unaware that you had protection on the card. However Egg has confirmed in their correspondence to ourselves that you were able to log onto your secure online account and view your statements which were posted online each month, and this would have shown the CRP premium applied to your credit card.

 

 

 

• I have not seen sufficient information to suggest there are any other reasons to recommend that your complaint should be upheld.

Conclusions

 

 

 

Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

What do you think? your thoughts......?

[NoButYesBut]

On what grounds did you tell the FOS it was incorrectly sold to you ?

[dirkuberpower]

i consider Fos may have got that decision correct, but you have not stated what you complained about. Why was it mis-sold?

 

from my experience, your complaint was rejected because:

 

No advice was given to you, if there is a suitability issue, its up to you to check that.

Their was no sale of the PPI, it was not sold to you, you applied for it online

You made the choice to take the ppi, you had the option of not taking it when applying

You would have been issued documents, so you could of cancelled it if it was selected in error.

 

 

However, if adjudicator was rude to you, complaint to her manager. they record all calls.

[NoButYesBut]

When did you apply for a card, no advice is not the get out of jail card that it is reported to be.

 

There is also the matter of informed choice. Sadly it would appear that the yes box (confirming that you have read the t&c's) was ticked on this occassion, so even if you did not read the restrictions and limitations of the policy you ticked to say you had.

 

That is unless you are saying that you didn't

[dirkuberpower]

Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my

 

Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ..... Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as far as i am concerned

they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time

and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them.

 

 

Sorry, i do not understand, you chose to refer your complaint to them. how is that FOS wasting your time? remember we are lucky to have such a service and that is free to consumers.

 

Because they did not side with you doesnt mean they are wrong. Surely if they are independant and in the middle, they investigated your complaint and did not agree with it.

 

Remember, its you vs egg. egg have all the evidence that shows you applied for it, you chose it. and from their point of view, they had no idea whether it was suitable as they provided no sale/advice to you. they would not be at fault if you had existing cover or had a pre existing condition.

 

If egg are in the wrong you need to tip the scales the other way.

[dirkuberpower]

Hello every one got some rubbish news today from the financial ombudsmen and my

Financial ombudsmen are suppose to be in the middle to settle disputes but unfortunately i have found out the hard way they are ..... Complete waste of time, not fit for purpose. i shall be taking this further as far as i am concerned

they should not be allowed to get away with wasting your time

and siding with the banks. However that is just in my experience with them.

 

 

Sorry, i do not understand, you chose to refer your complaint to them. how is that FOS wasting your time? remember we are lucky to have such a service and that is free to consumers.

 

Because they did not side with you doesnt mean they are wrong. Surely if they are independant and in the middle, they investigated your complaint and did not agree with it.

 

Remember, its you vs egg. egg have all the evidence that shows you applied for it, you chose it. and from their point of view, they had no idea whether it was suitable as they provided no sale/advice to you. they would not be at fault if you had existing cover or had a pre existing condition.

 

If egg are in the wrong you need to tip the scales the other way.

[NoButYesBut]

Egg have all the evidence that shows you applied for it, you chose it. and from their point of view, they had no idea whether it was suitable as they provided no sale/advice to you. they would not be at fault if you had existing cover or had a pre existing condition.

 

PPI providers would like consumers to believe that this is the case. However, if we look at the FOS publications, we can identify that this is not the case.

"If it seems to us that the consumer was not made aware that they were taking out a payment protection policy – or was not given basic information about the policy and how it worked – then we can tell the company involved to refund premiums the consumer has paid."

 

We must not also forget the impending changes to the DISP rules that will be implemented in December Dirk.

[NoButYesBut]

As confimed by the FSMA 2000, the FOS must take into account the law (and especially the provisions of insurance law), industry codes and good industry practice.

 

In this respect, it is relevant to note that there has, for some time, been regulation or codes governing the sale of insurance products such as PPI. There is much in common between the present statutory regulatory regime and the non-statutory provisions that preceded it (and indeed the position at law). The non-statutory provisions no longer apply as specific requirements on those selling insurance. But I consider that they still represent a helpful guide to good industry practice.

 

In the period immediately before statutory regulation in 2005, the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) promised in its Code that its members would:

 

“act fairly and reasonably when we deal with you [the customer];

 

make sure that all our general insurance services satisfy the requirements of this Private Customer Code;

 

make sure all the information we give you is clear, fair and not misleading;

 

avoid conflicts of interest or, if we cannot avoid this, explain the position fully to you;

 

give you enough information and help so you can make an informed decision before you make a final commitment to buy your insurance policy.”

 

The GISC Code provisions included:

 

“3. We will give you enough information and help so you can make an informed decision before you make a final commitment to buy your insurance policy.”

 

“3.2 We will make sure, as far as possible, that the products and services we offer you will match your requirements …

o If it is practical, we will identify your needs by getting relevant information from you.

o We will offer you products and services to meet your needs, and match any requirements you have.

o If we cannot match your requirements, we will explain the differences in the product or service that we can offer you.

o If it is not practical to match all your requirements, we will give you enough information so you can make an informed decision about your insurance.”

 

“3.3 We will explain all the main features of the products and services that we offer, including …

o any significant or unusual restrictions or exclusions;

o any significant conditions or obligations which you must meet.”

“3.4 We will give you full details of the costs of your insurance.”

“3.5 If we give you any advice or recommendations, we will:

o only discuss or advise on matters that we have knowledge of;

o make sure that any advice we give you or recommendations we make are aimed at meeting your interests; and

o not make any misleading claims for the products or services we offer or make any unfair criticisms about products and services that are offered by anyone else.”

[dirkuberpower]

PPI providers would like consumers to believe that this is the case. However, if we look at the FOS publications, we can identify that this is not the case.

"If it seems to us that the consumer was not made aware that they were taking out a payment protection policy – or was not given basic information about the policy and how it worked – then we can tell the company involved to refund premiums the consumer has paid."

 

We must not also forget the impending changes to the DISP rules that will be implemented in December Dirk.

 

 

Yes you're right and I agree. But egg must have supplied documents to show all

information was provided to him. The adjudicator has made a decision and considering FOS uphold a majority of ppi complaints there was probably no evidence of a mis-sale in this case. If there was evidence of a mis-sale the complaint would not have been rejected.

 

Also the consumer has a personal emotional involvement in this complaint and is of course going to be angry when their complaint is not upheld. Fos are neutral and sometimes consumers may have to consider they may actually be wrong.

 

Remember fos are independant and impartial. A lot of people seem to think they are there to be a consumer champion, but this is not the case.