Nationwide LoanCare PPI help please

[Crotalus]

I made a complaint re: a miss sold LoanCare single premium policy on behalf of my partner.

 

Nationwide seem to be trying to stall at every turn. The latest being that they need information on

 

1. employment status at time PPI was sold

2. Details of Employer, number of hours worked, particulars of his companys sick pay entitlement

3. Details of alternative means of making repayments, such as level of savings held with proof.

 

They will not progress any further without this info.

 

Now we have the results of the SAR,

Nationwide have most of this info already, apart from savings and sick pay entitlement.

 

Interestingly, we discovered when my OH took a top up loan on top, they charged him for another policy on top without telling us.

 

Do Nationwide have to have this info and is the 8 week deadline still in force while they wont progress?

 

Thank you

[ims21]

Hi

 

This is a stalling tactic IMHO.

 

How did you instigate your claim?

 

Did you complete a fos consumer questionnaire?

 

What were the reasons you gacve for the mis-sale?

[Crotalus]

Hi,

 

i thought so too Ims but im wondering how i reply to this. Do they have to have this information ? They already have it, it was good enough then.

 

We completed the FOS Questionnaire, the reasons were as follows:

My OH was told Nationwide do not do loans without Loancare, PPI was added without his knowledge when he renewed the loan. As he was living with his parents at the time, should he have become unemployed, the repayments would have been met via his employers sick pay. He no longer works for them and has not done for years. He had a small amount of savings at the time ( 2004) but no longer has this information.

 

Hope this helps

[ims21]

What you always need to have in your mind is that this is not about your affairs, it is about the way a bank mis-sold a product. These questions may be gearing up to to a suggestion that you would have bought an alternative policy which would mean that the bank would lessen the amount it has to pay out if and when your claim is successful.

 

If it were me I would write back and tell them that had they carried out a demands and needs assessment at the time then they would have the requested information on file. If they are now asking for this information then it would seem that the assessment was not done and that adds a bit more strength to your claim.

 

Tell them again that they put this insurance on the account without your partner's knowledge and that again would reinforce the view that no needs assessment was carried out.

 

Tell them that your partner was employed with full sick benefits etc for a period of x months. If you wish you can tell them who the employer was but there is no need to go into detail about hours worked etc.

 

Tell them that the savings question is not relevant to this claim.

 

Finally tell them that if they continue with what appear to be stalling tactics and do not refund the premiums and appropriate interest within the time scale laid down by the regulator then you will be passing this to fos and advising them that in addition to your original claim, it has now come to light that no demands and needs assessment was carried out and indeed how could it have been if the PPI was added without the borrower's knowledge.

 

You can tell them that you are aware that a case fee from fos will cost them another £850.

[Hortz]

I made a complaint re: a miss sold LoanCare single premium policy on behalf of my partner.

 

Nationwide seem to be trying to stall at every turn. The latest being that they need information on

 

1. employment status at time PPI was sold

2. Details of Employer, number of hours worked, particulars of his companys sick pay entitlement

3. Details of alternative means of making repayments, such as level of savings held with proof.

 

They will not progress any further without this info.

 

Now we have the results of the SAR,

Nationwide have most of this info already, apart from savings and sick pay entitlement.

 

Interestingly, we discovered when my OH took a top up loan on top, they charged him for another policy on top without telling us.

 

Do Nationwide have to have this info and is the 8 week deadline still in force while they wont progress?

 

Thank you

 

It's not stalling. They are asking questions which are necessary in order to fully assess the complaint.

 

It's in his best interests to answer. They cannot refuse to take it any further if he doesn't. However, in that instance they will assess based on the info they do have. Which means he could be doing himself out of a potential uphold if there is material info which he does not provide.

 

They may well have had most of this info at the time but you have to bear in mind it was 9 years ago and the person dealing with the complaint wasn't there at the time. They may no longer retain the records.

 

There is a perception on some sites that anyone who makes a complaint is automatically entitled to a full refund without question and that it is not fair when the bank do what they're supposed to do and actually investigate the case. However, the fact is that you are raising an allegation of wrongdoing against a member of their staff. And they're not going to hand money over unless they believe that on the balance of probabilities there is some substance to it.

[ims21]

It's not stalling. They are asking questions which are necessary in order to fully assess the complaint.

 

It's in his best interests to answer. They cannot refuse to take it any further if he doesn't. However, in that instance they will assess based on the info they do have. Which means he could be doing himself out of a potential uphold if there is material info which he does not provide.

 

They may well have had most of this info at the time but you have to bear in mind it was 9 years ago and the person dealing with the complaint wasn't there at the time. They may no longer retain the records.

 

There is a perception on some sites that anyone who makes a complaint is automatically entitled to a full refund without question and that it is not fair when the bank do what they're supposed to do and actually investigate the case. However, the fact is that you are raising an allegation of wrongdoing against a member of their staff. And they're not going to hand money over unless they believe that on the balance of probabilities there is some substance to it.

 

All very commendable if you actually place your trust in a bank to do things properly.

 

We know that they are not to be trusted and there is plenty of evidence around here to back that up.

 

To trust a bank to get things right is sheer folly.

 

Always ensure that you retain the upper hand and control of the situation. Do not let them box you into a corner and do not let them have the wriggle room to get out of repaying a mis-sold product.

 

If the bank no longer have the records then that is their problem, especially as we know that banks retain records for far longer than they will tell you. (oh that's a trust thing again isn't it?)

 

To the OP....keep at them.

[Hortz]

All very commendable if you actually place your trust in a bank to do things properly.

 

We know that they are not to be trusted and there is plenty of evidence around here to back that up.

 

To trust a bank to get things right is sheer folly.

 

Always ensure that you retain the upper hand and control of the situation. Do not let them box you into a corner and do not let them have the wriggle room to get out of repaying a mis-sold product.

 

If the bank no longer have the records then that is their problem, especially as we know that banks retain records for far longer than they will tell you. (oh that's a trust thing again isn't it?)

 

To the OP....keep at them.

 

It is true that banks (or building societies as Nationwide is) don't always do things properly. But speaking from personal experience, the whole "banks conspired with the FBI and Elvis to shoot John Lennon" thing is inaccurate. Banks cock things up regularly but they are cock ups and deficient processes. Not some kind of deep rooted conspiracy to con people and rip them off the way a lot of people believe.

 

Nationwide was not really one of the worst culprits in the PPI scandal and has earned a reputation for handling complaints fairly. Last set of data I saw put the FOS uphold rate on their cases at about 12%. As opposed to an average of 81%. The OP's OH is likely to get a fair outcome from them and if he is rejected it will likely be because be genuinely doesn't have a case

 

As regards the record keeping thing to explain it as simply as I can, the Bank has to review the sale. This includes stuff like eligibility and (if the sale was advised) suitability. Hence if they don't have the records they are going to have to try and get the info from somewhere. Which is probably why they have asked the OP's other half for it. If he doesn't answer then they can't assess these elements and therefore will assume that the sale was compliant. As per the above, FOS accepts that on the whole their sales process was compliant. The OP's job is to show that on this occasion it wasnt. Therefore, not to provide the info requested is only likely to harm their case. Especially if they have good answers that may support their case.

[ims21]

the whole "banks conspired with the FBI and Elvis to shoot John Lennon" thing is inaccurate.

 

Yes I'd agree they were probably not involved in those events.

 

Nationwide was not really one of the worst culprits in the PPI scandal

 

The degree to which they were involved in the scandal is irrelevant....the fact is that they have mis-sold products.

 

Claimants should always be mindful of banks using tactics to refuse a claim in order to mitigate their payouts and I think that the success rate that CAG has in guiding people through their claims speaks for itself.

[Hortz]

Yes I'd agree they were probably not involved in those events.

 

Lol