Nationwide PPI Claim

[cmacca]

Hi,

does anyone have any experience with Nationwide PPI claims ?,

 

they wrote to me saying I may have been mis-sold PPI,

 

I filled in the form they sent and posted it back,

my reasons for mis-sell where that I was covered via work and I sent them copies of all my benefits etc.

 

I have seen on other forums that Nationwide are usually really good and turn complaints around very quickly,

they are still well within the 56 working days but

 

I got a phone call the other day from them running through the complaint form and them asking me all sorts of questions,

they are obviously going through my bank account as well (they are also my main bank) as

they are asking me about money coming in from a company (my husbands work) and nowhere would this have been mentioned on my loan application as it was solely in my name.

 

The gentleman I spoke to was very nice and said I would hear within the 56 days

but just wondered if anyone else had also had calls from them

and them questioning you about your bank account transactions.

[dx100uk]

lots of banks are doingthis now

 

the best thing is to refuse to converse on the phone.

 

everything in writing only

 

they are looking for things to include in the waffle they send back when they refuse your claim.

 

dx

[cmacca]

Are they normally refused then when they call you ?

[dx100uk]

this is normally a Lloyds trick.

 

they bring in everything they can to justify the refusal

 

but

 

never answer the actual mis-selling complaint you initially asked about.

 

await the letter.

 

dx

[Hortz]

lots of banks are doingthis now

 

the best thing is to refuse to converse on the phone.

 

everything in writing only

 

dx

 

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

They're actually doing what they are supposed to and really investigating the circumstances surrounding the sale.

 

A recognised part of good customer complaint handling is conversing with the customer and gaining a real first hand understanding of their concerns.

 

It's also a part that's been neglected for too long during the whole PPI saga.

 

Refusing to speak to them is far more likely to result in your complaint being rejected.

 

Reason #1

they have targets and deadlines to meet and rather than get into long drawn out correspondence will just reject it

and tell you that if you have any other evidence they'll look at it again.

 

Reason 2 as a complaint handler you would expect that a customer who genuinely feels they have been mistreated would

welcome a complaint handler contacting them to talk through their concerns.

Bearing in mind the number of try-it-on complainants now jumping on the bandwagon,

if the complainant refuses to speak with them, they are not unreasonably going to wonder what the person has to hide.

[Hortz]

Are they normally refused then when they call you ?

 

Depends on the outcome of the call.

 

If they're satisfied you have valid grounds for complaint it'll be upheld.

 

If they don't think you have it'll be rejected.

 

If they're not sure then they'll probably reject but offer you the opportunity to provide further evidence/info

if you think there's anything of any relevance they should consider.

 

As the person making an allegation of wrongdoing, the burden of proof in the matter is with you,

so you will need to convince the handler that you have genuine grounds for complaint.

Best way to do this is to be truthful and up front.

 

What were your reasons for complaint anyway?

[ims21]

They're actually doing what they are supposed to and really investigating the circumstances surrounding the sale.

 

Which they could do in writing.

 

A recognised part of good customer complaint handling is conversing with the customer and gaining a real first hand understanding of their concerns.

 

Which they could do in writing.

 

It's also a part that's been neglected for too long during the whole PPI saga.

 

That is very subjective.....have you some evidence to back up this statement?

 

Refusing to speak to them is far more likely to result in your complaint being rejected

 

In my opinion they will by now have been trained with loaded questions with an aim to confuse and confound and ultimately frustrate the process. The claimant will generally be at a disadvantage of a trained "Clams Handler" who is looking to protect the banks' interest.

 

Reason 2 as a complaint handler you would expect that a customer who genuinely feels they have been mistreated would welcome a complaint handler contacting them to talk through their concerns

 

A claims handler can expect what they like. The fact is that that the PPI scandal is heading to be the biggest financial scandal of all time. Couple that with the fines that have been dished out to these financial outfits, I don't think people who have been systemically mis-sold products by a bank would welcome conversation with them at all. They would far prefer a paper trail so that the wriggle room for a bank trying to get out of a reclaim is minimised.

 

Bearing in mind the number of try-it-on complainants now jumping on the bandwagon

 

So the banks weren't "trying it on" with the mass mis-selling. If they hadn't (in many cases) deliberately mis-sold these products we would not be in the position we are now. Sorry but the fault here lies firmly with the financial institutions and they deserve everything they get in terms of the bill for compensation and the fines that they have attracted.

 

if the complainant refuses to speak with them, they are not unreasonably going to wonder what the person has to hide.

 

And of course the financial institutions have nothing to hide do they? This is all their fault, not the people who have been stiffed by them. By your reasoning the banks are whiter than white which we know is factually incorrect.

 

Just to finish, if you wish to open up a discussion thread on the subject then please do so. I would not normally respond to such a post on a member's thread for fear of it going off track but a new thread if you wish a discussion would be appropriate.

Edited June 27, 2013 by ims21

[dx100uk]

nice post!!

 

dx

[Hortz]

Which they could do in writing.

 

 

 

Which they could do in writing.

 

 

 

That is very subjective.....have you some evidence to back up this statement?

 

 

 

In my opinion they will by now have been trained with loaded questions with an aim to confuse and confound and ultimately frustrate the process. The claimant will generally be at a disadvantage of a trained "Clams Handler" who is looking to protect the banks' interest.

 

 

 

A claims handler can expect what they like. The fact is that that the PPI scandal is heading to be the biggest financial scandal of all time. Couple that with the fines that have been dished out to these financial outfits, I don't think people who have been systemically mis-sold products by a bank would welcome conversation with them at all. They would far prefer a paper trail so that the wriggle room for a bank trying to get out of a reclaim is minimised.

 

 

 

So the banks weren't "trying it on" with the mass mis-selling. If they hadn't (in many cases) deliberately mis-sold these products we would not be in the position we are now. Sorry but the fault here lies firmly with the financial institutions and they deserve everything they get in terms of the bill for compensation and the fines that they have attracted.

 

 

 

And of course the financial institutions have nothing to hide do they? This is all their fault, not the people who have been stiffed by them. By your reasoning the banks are whiter than white which we know is factually incorrect.

 

Just to finish, if you wish to open up a discussion thread on the subject then please do so. I would not normally respond to such a post on a member's thread for fear of it going off track but a new thread if you wish a discussion would be appropriate.

 

Not my intention to start a general discussion at all. I'm just trying to explain to the OP with reference to the original post why following the suggested course of action is the last thing he should be doing.

 

Leaving aside the tub thumping and the conspiracy theories,

 

the bottom line is that the complaint handler is an individual who is going to ultimately be deciding whether to uphold the OP's case.

 

If the OP has a valid and provable case then it will be upheld (though if this was the case they probably wouldn't bother to ring at all,

just make an offer and move onto the next one).

 

If not, and it comes down to an issue of credibility and believability then turning round and saying I don't want to talk to you"

to the person trying to investigate the complaint will give all the reason they need to reject it.

 

If you're a bank complaint handler with deadlines and targeta to meet trying to contact someone to gain a better understanding

and they turn round and say (in effect) "I wot talk to you even though you've called me to try and resolve the complaint I made"

are you going to be predisposed towards being sympathetic to that person?

 

Up to the OP what he/she does but I'd advocate making an attempt to be seen as honest and trustworthy.

[cmacca]

I don't mind them calling me at all, I have nothing to hide, I was never made aware of the PPI at point of sale, I had a lot of cover from work and I have been able to provide them with letters to show this, I just wondered if it was normal to be called.

[ims21]

I don't mind them calling me at all, I have nothing to hide, I was never made aware of the PPI at point of sale, I had a lot of cover from work and I have been able to provide them with letters to show this, I just wondered if it was normal to be called.

 

It is your choice of course. However, I personally would not enter into detailed conversation with them on the phone. If you have a facility to record the call then that would lessen the potential for them to mislead you.

 

Their internal targets for complaint resolution should be of absolutely no concern to a claimant...it is not your problem. Indeed, introducing targets in itself can lead to things not being dealt with properly.

 

The only target that a claimant should be interested in is the one laid down by the regulator for PPI complaints resolution which is 8 weeks fro receipt of the claim.

 

I am not of course suggesting being dishonest with them (as is inferred by a post above) but a written response gives you time to compose your answer to best effect.

 

By being in writing, this can of course be via e-mail which will cut down the time take for responses.

 

This has nothing to do with you being seen to be honest and trustworthy. It is all about ensuring that your complaint is dealt with in a professional and businesslike manner and you are quite within your rights to adopt the written approach.

[cmacca]

Concerned now about the post above where it is mentioned: If the OP has a valid and provable case then it will be upheld (though if this was the case they probably wouldn't bother to ring at all, just make an offer and move onto the next one).

[ims21]

Don't be concerned.

 

You have stated that the PPI was put on the account without your knowledge. If that is the case then that is a good enough reason on it's own for a mis-sale.

 

Bear in mind we do get the odd person on here who will put out mis-information.

[Hortz]

I don't mind them calling me at all, I have nothing to hide, I was never made aware of the PPI at point of sale, I had a lot of cover from work and I have been able to provide them with letters to show this, I just wondered if it was normal to be called.

 

The problem with the first point is that whilst it may be true,

I can guarantee you that your loan agreement would have mentioned it somewhere.

 

I don't know if you've still got a copy (doubt it if the loan is closed, not many people would have) but if so I'd have a look.

 

If by any chance it doesn't then your complaint (along with those of any other party who had a similar loan) ought to be automatically upheld without the need to contact you.

 

As regards the other cover, it really depends on whether the sale was carried out on an advised or non advised basis,

if it was advised then they have to make sure the policy is suitable for you and if it isn't then it ought to be upheld.

 

If non advised then they only have to provide info on what it is and what it covers and are not responsible for suitability of the product.

 

Though it might sound like a contradiction in terms to be an advised sale when you have said you weren't aware of the product,

I don't think they'd bother asking you about other cover if it wasn't considered to be of relevance to the investigation.

 

So just answer as fully as you can and if your answers give fair grounds it will be upheld.

 

If you want to answer in writing then make clear to them that you want to look into the issues more rather than attempt to answer off the cuff.

 

If you answer by phone (which it looks like you have done) and you forget anything of relevance you can always contact them back to add it.

 

If it doesn't go your way and you are still convinced you have a case there's always FOS.