Are there any self-employed people out there that had their PPI mis-selling complaint upheld by Barclaycard?

[Paul61]

HI

 

I posted a new thread last week about my PPI mis-selling complaint to Barclaycard not being upheld. I received very good advice on this, but didn't get a response from anyone that was/is self-employed and had their complaint upheld by BC. Since then, MBNA upheld my complaint and 2 months ago EGG did the same. Whilst the policy wording is different in the three cases, the exclusions all seem to make it impossible for a self-employed person to make a complaint on the grounds of unemployment.

 

I would really appreciate hearing about the experiences of other self-employed (sole traders) and PPI mis-selling complaints to BC.

 

Thanks, Paul

[cerberusalert]

PPI certainly doesn't cover self-employed people. Even tho' Barclaysharks may not have upheld your claim the FOS most certainly will.

[Paul61]

Thanks for your reply. On my previous thread, most advised me to take this issue direct to County Court. However, I am rather fearing that approach since I have all my accounts and mortgage with Barclays and don't want the situation of them closing down my accounts (not sure if that is legal but I read that it has happened to some with other banks/building societies). I feel the FOS is my best option, but it seems the process is a very lengthy one?

[ims21]

Hi

 

As mentioned on your other thread...

 

fos = slow

 

court = quick

 

The decision is your as to which way you go. Some fos cases get dealt with quicker than others depending on the complexity of the case but no-one can tell you exactly how long it would take.

 

Retaliatory action is something to be aware of although the FSA/fos would not be best pleased if they found out this was going on.

 

No one can make the decision which way you should go.....there are two options and it is a decision you must make having gathered enough information to make an informed choice.

 

Regards

 

ims

[freelance]

I have two PPI complaints with Barclaycard awaiting a decision on behalf of a friend - on one of them she was self-employed at the time of taking out the card, the other she was employed but then became self-employed shortly after and unaware that the PPI was no longer appropriate as Barclays had never provided any details or policy documents for either policy. The second claim is less likely to be upheld because it's the situation at the time of the sale that is taken into consideration. However as Barclays had failed to fully inform her and she was considering self-employment at the time it was taken out it's still worth complaining about anyway, nothing ventured nothing gained etc. Their time is up this week for responding so I'll let you know what their response is if it helps.

 

I'm also self-employed and I've had no problems having any complaints upheld except for HSBC, which has now gone to the FOS. That was MPPI so I was also nervous about mortgage and current accounts etc if they turned nasty. It's my understanding that if you take them to court they're more likely to end their relationship with you - to be honest the FSA etc can take a dim view but what they can actually do about it I'm not sure. A bank can certainly end their relationship and close the accounts of any customer for no reason at all if they want, as long as they stick to their own published rules about giving notice. Not sure about whether they can do this with mortgages - I'd like to think it was more complicated for them to shut a mortgage down!

 

Personally if you're not in a mad hurry for the money I'd go FOS first, despite the wait (and the 8%, if applicable, keeps accruing during that time). If the FOS don't uphold you can then still go to court - you can't do court then FOS.

Edited November 30, 2011 by freelance

[elsinore]

PPI certainly doesn't cover self-employed people.

 

That’s not so, cerberus. Some policies do.

My daughter was sold a Paymentcare policy by Abbey in 2004, to protect her mortgage repayments. She was then, and still is, self-employed. The policy document clearly states that cover is provided for the self-employed and the definitions and eligibility paragraphs specify the exact terms.

However, it was only when she submitted a claim to Abbey/Santander and argued, among other points, that she was ineligible by dint of self-employment, that her attention was drawn to the fact. Abbey did not supply a policy or any other document at the time the mortgage was completed and my daughter was unaware of the existence of the policy until she spotted the monthly direct debit for the premium.

She now has a claim pending with the FOS but she has dropped the ‘self-employed’ element from her arguments.

Els

[freelance]

Many policies do claim to offer cover for the self-employed. The problem is that the 'exact terms' which apply to the self-employed in the ever-elusive policy documents made it almost impossible for anyone self-employed to successfully claim on the policy. Just because they say they cover something doesn't mean they'll ever pay out on a claim. Most people selling these policies didn't even understand what 'self-employed' meant, let alone asked any questions about the nature of that person's self-employment, explained the terms or any exclusions or provided policy documents. It's also a standard response of banks, when confronted with a mis-selling complaint, to just blindly quote that they do 'cover self-employed people' regardless.