FOS found in favour of CrapOne but FSA find them during that period

[lord_tiger_putin]

I took out a PPI with a CrapOne card which was during the period the FSA found them guilty of failing to live up to their obligations, From the FSA website: “From January 2005 to April 2006, Capital One failed to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about the policy including all exclusions although they did receive a policy summary. Affected customers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them”. Well the FOS decided that Crapone have done enough in my case (which is no diffrenet to that of the customers in which the FSA decided they failed to do so). I assume the only option now is to take legal action again the Crapone loosers? Will the fact that their buddies found in their favour count against me in a legal case??

Edited June 29, 2011 by lord_tiger_putin

[rebel11]

Hi lord

 

Get the FOS to have another look, appeal it.

[lord_tiger_putin]

Hi lord

 

Get the FOS to have another look, appeal it.

 

Thanks for the response, I did asked for a review and I added the information from the FSA. The woman from the FOS states that they look at it at a case by case basis and the individual circumstances. Well, my circumstances was exactly as described in the response of the FSA to CrapOne. Here is both the information from the FSA towards Crapone and the FOS decision towards me, anyone can see that they the FOS statement is the exact opposite op the point of view of the FSA.

 

From the FSA website:

“From January 2005 to April 2006, Capital One failed to ensure that 50,000 customers received important information about the policy including all exclusions although they did receive a policy summary. Affected customers were unable to check what they were covered for or if the policy was right for them”.

 

Extract from the final notice issued by the FSA to Capital One:

In particular, the Firm's failure to provide more than 50,000 customers with a policy document (rather than just a policy summary which was provided in all cases) meant that affected customers did not have the opportunity to consider all aspects of the PPI policy, and whether it may have met their demands and needs, prior to purchase. However, the provision of full policy information is important as PPI is a complex product which consumers need to fully understand in order to make the decision that it is suitable for their needs. As a result of the Firm's failure to provide a policy document, affected customers were not given full information to form a judgement to whether the policy was suited for their demands and needs. The FSA considers this to be a serious and significant failing.

 

In a non-telephone sale, an insurance intermediary must generally provide the full policy terms and conditions to a customer prior to the conclusion of the contract.

 

The FOS statement:

The policy was sold by Capital One without any recommendation and they did not formally give advice. Capital One only provided product information (in the form of a summary overview document, a copy which is enclosed) to allow you to decide whether to purchase the policy or not. As such, it was incumbent upon you to satisfy yourself that the policy was suitable for your needs and to investigate alternative options or other means that might be available to you, before you made the decision to purchase.