Jump to content


FOS PPI complaint reply


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3084 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hiya

I was wondering if anyone could give me some advice?

Im fairly new to all this ppi reclaiming so want to make sure the information im giving the FOS is concise and to the point.

 

I took out an Egg credit card in 2006,

fast forward to the start of Jan 2009 and I get a letter from EGG saying my payment protection insurance has been cancelled

(I still have this letter)

 

I never even knew I had payment protection insurance,

I would of never signed up to payment protection insurance,

I had a good job working for central goverment so full sick pay, pension good redundancy package etc,

not to mention being a member of the union which also had benefits if I ever lost my job/illness/death benefit etc

so I definately would never of signed up for payment protection insurance as it was most certainly not needed.

 

I applied for my egg card online and I think I was one of their customers who had pre ticked boxes on the online application

as I cannot recall ever ticking a box saying yes to ppi insurance.

 

I had a Halifax Mortgage and I spotted the ppi added to my claim fairly quickly

and had it removed and that was not long after so I im pretty certain I wouldn't of signed up for ppi.

 

a year and a half ago I signed up to i-smart to sort my ppi claims out,

after about 9 months of no contact from them I sent them a letter to say I did not want them to act on my behalf.

That was the last I heard from them.

 

Fast forward to around Oct 2013 and I decide to put some ppi claims in myself,

 

I write to Barclaycard about my Egg card and hear nothing,

I decide to call last week and they tell me the claim has already been looked up

and closed and if I want to know why I need to call the FOS.

 

I call the FOS and they say a claim managment company acting on my behalf submitted a complaint to FOS

about my Egg card claim being rejected,

the FOS asked for more info and I did not reply so the case was closed!

 

To cut a long story short I had to write another letter to i-smart

and they are no longer acting on my behalf and the FOS have sent me the letter detailing

why my claim was rejected and a slip for me to return with my explanation

and any evidence as to why my complaint should be upheld.

 

Would anyone be able to advise me how best to reply

as I don't want to leave anything important out?!

 

The reply they have sent is 3 pages long so I will just try to paraphrase it.

 

Your circumstances when you bought the policy

Took the policy out in December 2006 over the internet.

The cost of the PPI was £0.75 per £100 of the outstanding monthly balance.

If you made a successful claim, the PPI would cover 10% of the outstanding monthly balance on your credit card.

This would have been paid upto 12 months per claim.

 

We asked your representative (i-smart) to give us more information about your circumstances when you bought the policy.

Because we have not received that information, I cannot conclude that policy would not have provided you

with reasonable benefit compared to the cost. So for this reason , I cannot uphold your complaint.

 

From the information I have gathered I do not think Barclays recommended you take out the policy

and I have kept this in mind looking at your case.

 

I did not even realise I had this policy so I can only conclude that it was a pre tick box on my online application,

I only discovered I had ppi when I received a letter from Egg in early 2009 saying my ppi had been cancelled,

why had it been cancelled?

I didn't even know I had it so why was it suddenly cancelled?

Was it because they had been told at that point their practice of pre ticked boxes was wrong?

 

When I checked the terms of your policy, I found you were eligible for the policy when you took it out.

 

We check whether the business made it clear to you that the policy was optional,

looking over the information Barclays gave when you took out the policy,

I have found that you made it clear you wanted to take out the policy in your application.

Because of this I cannot fairly say that Barclays did not make it clear to you the policy was optional.

Again how did Barclays make it clear it was optional when it was added sneakily on my intial online application

with a pre ticked box that was ruled in court to be wrong?

 

Were the policy’s costs and benefits made clear to you?:

I can see Barclays could have made information clearer to you.

But I think your circumstances at the time suggest the policy was not too expensive for you,

and it’s benefits could have been useful to you.

 

Does it matter if the policy was not too expensive for me?

I did not want or need the product!

My job and union cover would of covered me for this,

not to mention if all else failed I could of asked for my parents to cover the cost, it was simply something I would never need!

They have admitted Barclays could have made information clearer to me,

maybe if they did that I would of realised ppi had been added

and I could of called them to have it removed?

 

For the reasons explained – and taking into account all other evidence I have

- I cannot conclude that Barclays mis-sold you the policy.

They did not give me an option to decline the policy surely that is mis-selling?

I didnt know I had the policy, I didn't need the policy and had adequate cover elsewhere

 

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would for the sake of clarity

fill out a copy of the FOS customer questionnaire

 

they are well aware that the egg site [and you need to highlight to the FOS this was an EGG CARD taken out online

NOT a Barclaycard.] that required you to untick the box

and that the site would notlet you progress without the box being ticked.

 

you also need to high-light the fact that 99% of gov't employees get their claims settled in their favour

because of the benefits available - make ref to the example case on their website [the nurse one'

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all appreciate that the FOS didn't know about your sick pay etc. when they didn't uphold the initial complaint.

Now is your time to inform them. Although, your existing sick pay etc. doesn't mean you couldn't benefit from PPI - which is what the FOS will assess

 

The fact that you only noticed the PPI in 2009 weakens your complaint because it would have been listed on your statements all this time.

 

Somebody else will have to advise about the pre-ticked boxes because I can't recall when they stopped using them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is no timelimit on PPI reclaims.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

sri

not knowing PPI could be reclaimed is not weakened by the fact it was on every statement

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but not knowing that it can be reclaimed is a separate issue. (You can't just reclaim it anyway - you have to complain that it was mis-sold).

 

Like the OP has said, we are talking about the issue of not knowing that you had PPI. Since the PPI would have been on the statements it does weaken your complaint because they are going to wonder why you didn't notice sooner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's why i'm indicating it migt be an idea to refocus the complaint by using the FOS CQ.

 

these claim companies as you and I know

 

are not in it for the punter but themselves. and are a total waste of time and you can lose upto 50% of your claim to them

 

the over riding factor here is the local gov't employment.

 

and as theres an exact same case in there example that is often pointed too

 

thats the clincher.....and the claim focus.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes that's why i'm indicating it migt be an idea to refocus the complaint by using the FOS CQ.

 

these claim companies as you and I know

 

are not in it for the punter but themselves. and are a total waste of time and you can lose upto 50% of your claim to them

 

the over riding factor here is the local gov't employment.

 

and as theres an exact same case in there example that is often pointed too

 

thats the clincher.....and the claim focus.

 

dx

 

Yes the FOS PPI questionnaire is a good idea. :-) You must have beaten me to it and already posted just as I was writing my first reply otherwise I probably wouldn't have said anything to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya thanks for your replies, so basically my reply should detail how I had adequate cover through my employment at central goverment and various cover with my union also such as the benevolent fund for members in financial troubles etc? This then shows the ppi was mis-sold to me because I did not need the ppi as I had all bases covered with my job etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pers would be starting again.

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi.html

 

I am not one for the scatter gun approach [using multiple reasons to reclaim]

 

the decision is yours.

 

I would 'base' things upon this

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya thanks for those links, im gonna have a good read of them now. Im actually feeling really stressed out about it all which is why I posted on here so hopefully once ive read through all of this and drafted a reply I can post it on here and you guys can tell me what you think?!

 

Anyways thanks again :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's what we are all here for

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so I have written out my explanation several times and then decided alot of useless inf was included so I have just got straight to the point and kept it short and sweet and will send a few pieces of paper from work ( a page of my contract - not all of it as its pages long and not sure if it's confidential as I work for the goverment. I will also send a copy of my annual pension statement just to show im part of the civil service pension scheme?)

 

I decided to leave out the whole bit about the pre ticked boxes etc as that is muddying the waters and would be very hard to prove as google has since shown to be the case!

 

so here it is......

 

I was mis-sold payment protection insurance on my Egg credit card.

 

I did not need the policy as my employer provided a generous illness and redundancy package. I was not asked if I already had any form of payment protection policy and I was not asked if my employment terms and conditions would provide adequate income due to sickness or possible redundancy.

 

Insurers are under an obligation to ensure that the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and clearly, as my employment afforded me with such protection already I did not need a duplicate policy, therefore Egg have not fulfilled this requirement.

 

Please see attached evidence of said employment

 

 

Honest opinions please? Is it any good or needs more? alot more? Any advice veyr welcome!

Link to post
Share on other sites

use the simple lines in summary of conclusions page 7

 

then just add the info about the gov't employees scheme you had

and that NO questions were ever asked as to if you had any insurance inplace.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

use the simple lines in summary of conclusions page 7

 

then just add the info about the gov't employees scheme you had

and that NO questions were ever asked as to if you had any insurance inplace.

 

dx

 

 

Seems that it has already been established that this was a non advised sale.

 

In such a sale, as is stated on the FOS site, all that the business need do is provide clear, fair and not mis-leading information.

 

As such, any complaint based on the lines of no questions being asked/suitability is irrelevant.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive had just re-written it.....

 

I was mis-sold payment protection insurance on my Egg credit card.

 

I did not need the policy as my employer provided a generous illness, redundancy death in service package. I was not asked if I already had any form of payment protection policy and I was not asked if my employment terms and conditions would provide adequate income due to sickness or possible redundancy.

 

Insurers are under an obligation to ensure that the policy they are selling is appropriate to that customer and clearly, as my employment afforded me with such protection already I did not need a duplicate policy, therefore Egg have not fulfilled this requirement.

 

As noted by yourselves, Egg could of made the costs and benefits clearer to me. If Egg had done so I would of certainly not taken out this policy that I did not need when I already had adequate protection along with a supportive family who would of without question helped me financially if I asked. I was not put in the position where I could make an informed choice.

 

For the reasons set out above, I argue that Egg failed to take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and did not pay due regard to the information needs of its customer therefore not treating me fairly.

 

Please see attached evidence of said employment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm..poss

but no according to post 1

the fos have not said that directly?

 

my guess is the fos replied upon the info they had

and want ed more

it appears thatthey think tthis was a Barclaycard? but re reading p'haps not?

 

make it clear

it was an online EGG card application, and the egg site at that time

is well documented & known to the FOS for not letting you find or untick the YES PPI box and progress at that time

[sri LL I didn't re-read the thread ]

 

but you also need the other bits too I mentioned.

 

dx

 

]

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

urm..poss

but no according to post 1

the fos have not said that directly?

 

my guess is the fos replied upon the info they had

and want ed more

it appears thatthey think tthis was a Barclaycard

 

it was not

it was an online EGG card application, and the egg site at that time

is well documented & known to the FOS for not letting you find or untick the YES PPI box and progress at that time

[sri LL I didn't re-read the thread ]

 

but you also need the other bits too I mentioned.

 

dx

 

]

 

Yes I noticed the letter states Barclays when I did clearly state Egg Credit card, which is why have written Egg card several times in my reply just to make sure they get it lol

 

Im pretty sure the box online was pre ticked but unfortunately I cant prove it :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think like you think, you have to prove that

 

they will be well aware and wil have data for the sites contruction of that period to 'bring that in'

 

I don't think they realised this on the first claim, I don't think I-smart would have used it.

 

from what I've seem of I-smart claims, they are a very generic template type of claim

with a few basic changes for each type of original creditor

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...