Capital One PPI Claim Saga

[grak444]

Hi Fellow CAG'ers,

 

In 2001, I entered into a credit card agreement with Capital One.

As part of the whole SAR process, I requested a full and legible copy of the agreement I entered into with them.

 

After some time, copies were provided to me that were not countersigned by Cap One.

In addition, clearly legible on the form is the box which clearly shows where I ticked "No" against

"Please enrol me in Capital One's Payment Protection Scheme".

 

In a way and foolishly on my behalf all of those years back,

I was embroiled in a busy business and wasn't one to check statements nor question them.

 

What transpired was that Cap One had been adding Payment Protection insurance charges to my account from 2001.

 

During the recent drive for questioning PPI and its legitimacy,

I wrote to Capital One over a number of months only to be fobbed off with the fact that an apparent phone call was made

whereby I allegedly requested PPI to be added to my account.

 

Their final letter to me contained the following paragraph:

 

"You have requested a full refund of premiums and interest.

Circumstances:

You applied for a Capital One credit card account by completed by a postal application on 28 October 2001.

At this point you did not indicate that you wanted to purchase optional PPI

and as a result it was not applied to your account at this stage.

You later purchased the policy during a telephone conversation on 12 November 1999.

 

At the time of purchase you confirmed that you were 39 years of age,

earning a salary of (between £27K and £35K(. Therefore we did not identify anything to suggest that you were ineligible for the PPI.

 

Your PPI was cancelled on 18 November 2007. Capital One sole credit card PPI on a non-advised basis, we did not provide advice.

 

PPI was purchased on a non-advised basis, there was no requirement for Capital One to complete a demands and needs statement.

It was your responsibility to confirm that the policy was suitable for your needs.

 

Following a complete investigation into your complaint we are confident that the policy was sold appropriately.

We believe you were provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision to purchase the policy.

 

As this is the case I will not be looking to refund any of the premiums or associated interest that has been charged to your account.

 

Financial regulations require me to advise you that this is my final response in relation to this matter.

However you now have the option to contact the Financial Ombudsman Office within six months from the date of this letter."

 

 

The question I have, is that I have no recollection of calling and requesting PPI at that stage.

Their letter contradicts dates by 2 years in that I took out the credit card in 2001

yet they said I called them and took out PPI 2 years previously in 1999!

 

As Capital One have said I have no other recourse in this matter,

am I within my rights to write to them once again,

requesting a full copy and SAR and statements along with a copy of the transcript of the alleged telephone call (in verbal form and not written)

in order that if I so wished to take the matter further through the small claims court (avoiding the FOS as this seems to be a seamless way

of progressing matters listening to other posts along the way).

 

Many Thanks for your patience in listening to my case and hope that someone will be able to point me in the right direction

in an attempt to get resolve with Capital One.

 

 

Keith

[dx100uk]

that's the std response from cap1

there ws a sticker on the card for you to 'activate it'

 

and a number to call.

 

infact it was a phoneline to 'actitivate' the PPI & probablyCPP too.

 

write back requiring the transcript of the call.

 

if you type in capital 1 or one PPI

 

in our top toolbar search

 

there are numerous threads the same to read.

 

they do fold eventually

 

if you've not done the FOS questionnaire

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

 

and read the three top blue links there

upon the timeline of who/what regulated them gosc etc

 

then I would do that too.

 

if you blindly sent off a speculative letter

without using the FOS CQ

cap1 will always send a speculative reply back

 

dx

[grak444]

Many Thanks DX - I'll head off down the route you suggest too.

 

 

K

[grak444]

Hi CAG'ers,

 

 

I'm in a situation with Capital One whereby they are refusing to acknowledge any form of acceptance on my situation where I have miss appropriately been added PPI insurance to my credit card account that was.

 

 

I've disputed the fact with them in correspondence and their last response was that I would have taken out the insurance on a follow up call (bearing in mind this was early 2000's). I have my original online application form which clearly shows a "tick" where I did not want to take PPI Insurance out. I also have a complete month by month summary provided by them which shows PPI added to my account.

 

 

I've since responded back to them in writing under the freedom of information act requesting evidence of the call and its content to which I've been given the same stock answer that seems to appear on other threads.

 

 

Their main response is that the FOS would be unable to arbitrate on this occasion as they believe this complaint to be statute barred.

 

 

I've attached my initial letter to Cap One and their subsequent response.

 

 

Am I still in my rights to request the information I requested in my letter to them in order to build up further evidence?

 

 

Are they in their rights to simply block my requests and ignore what was requested?

 

 

Hoping someone can help in this matter as they cannot be allowed to operate in such a way and feel they can avoid consequences.

 

 

Regards

 

 

Grak

[ims21]

Getting information from them does not fall within the Freedom of Information Act. A Subject Access Request under the DAta Protection Act is what is needed.

 

However, getting data that old may be an issue and they will not be able to provide a transcript of that phone call.

 

This is a standard excuse used by Capital One.

 

Their contention that this is Statutory Barred is a nonsense as there is no time limit as such on PPI complaints.

 

As you are getting nowhere with Capital One then it would seem that the fos is the next step in this process.

[fkofilee]

Hii All

 

Im in disagreeance with IMS.

 

Recently having a discussion with the FOS on a case historically more than a few years old,

they have advised that any case that is referred to them with is over the 6 month period of the final response letter they will not consider investigating.

 

But the person i could be talking to at the FOS maybe a monkeynut. No harm in trying.

 

I just wonder if the PPI Element may overturn that decision due to the type of complaint....

[ims21]

As their final response was over six months ago then you will have to overcome hurdle.

 

However, it is not statutory barred in the sense of the Limitations Act.

 

You might well be able to get fos to look at this on the basis that you have been attempting on an ongoing basis to deal with Cap One yourself.

 

You have nothing to lose.

 

Was there any particular reason why you did not action their refusal earlier?

 

You still have the court route open to you if you wish but getting a mis-selling claim through court puts the onus of proof of mis-selling on the complainant.

[grak444]

Thanks All,

 

 

Looking through previous posts relating to the same sort of a claim, it seems that FOS attempts these days are quite frail.

 

Every time I write to Cap One, they give me the same stock answer in that they refer to their previous letter

of which I would have accepted insurance on a follow up call.

 

Surely in the eyes of the law, me presenting my original application form to a court of law

which clearly shows that I did not request insurance, then Cap One must provide some form of evidence

to prove that I did subsequently accept it of which I'm not accepting.

 

Are there any others that have been in this same situation and have avoided the FOS route and attempted a direct claim?

 

The delay in their previous letter was due to family issues occurring and as such fell by the wayside.

I can't see that being an issue if I progress however as the same situation still stands.

 

Would you say that I am better at this stage to attempt to request information held under a SAR with Cap One?

All they've been able to provide in the past is my application and subsequent statements which are backing up my claim?

 

Regards

 

Grak

[grak444]

You still have the court route open to you if you wish but getting a mis-selling claim through court puts the onus of proof of mis-selling on the complainant.

 

IMS21 - Going down the court route as others seem to be progressing of late, even though I clearly ticked "No" to not wanting insurance,

surely a court would expect Cap One to prove that I subsequently did accept such a sale as they purported I might well have done?

 

Regards

[grak444]

Hi All,

 

 

Having been back and forth with CAP ONE in my additional SAR request,

they did provide me with all aspects referring to my account at the time

and no where within any records they hold does it state that PPI was subsequestly added to my account from any telephone calls made.

 

 

I would have thought that any such calls made to me (as others have appeared on records) would have shown again.

 

 

I've since written back to them requesting evidence of said telephone call and them provisioning me with evidence of the same

but all I receive back is a standard letter that they re-issue telling me that their final decision was sent to me previously

and this will not change their decision.

 

 

Furthermore they state that I will not be able to pursue with the Financial Ombudsman as the situation is time barred

and will not be able to artitrate on (their comments relate to it being more than 6 years since the event).

 

 

I'm at a loss now as I know from previous claims made against them that they are clearly in the wrong.

 

 

From those that pursued the court route, was there a number of years gap in which you were able to prove your case against?

 

 

I'm really hoping there's someone that could assist as they should not be able to get away simply

by responding with standard stock letters in the way in which they do

 

 

.Regards All

[grak444]

Hi,

 

 

Just wondered if anyone could give me any advise further as i'm coming against a block with Cap One

each time they respond with the same stock answer in that they refuse to comment any further on my PPI mis claim case.

 

 

I will write again as they clearly refuse to co-operate in providing me exact evidence I asked for as part of my SAR

(that is the evidence or documented scripts the salesperson was purported to have used during the conversation).

 

 

Hoping the thread picks back up again please.

 

 

Regards

[grak444]

Hello,

 

Having re-requested information Capital One should have relating to a purported telephone call held, I've received a letter back from them advising:

 

"Unfortunately our records do not go back to 2001 and therefore cannot give you the call or the transcript of said call"

 

Having also made the request to see any copy of the transcript that their agents would of used, the letter goes on to say;

 

"We can confirm that under the Data Protections Act 1998 we are not obliged to send documents which do not contain any customer data."

 

I feel as though i'm at the end of the road now in reuqesting information they have on me relating to the in-appropriate adding of PPI to my account.

 

There have been identical cases publically made available on the FOS official site of which all were upheld by the FOS.

 

 

Due to the time it's taking to get through their backlog,

would anyone advise that I continue my claim with Capital One directly through the courts in this instance

where they cannot provide evidence that I had subsequently taken out PPI when clearly the initial form was ticked as "No"?

 

I really would appreciate some solid advise at this stage.

 

Regards

[grak444]

Hi - are there amy moderators who could assist please or advise if I sould post in a more suitable area?

Thanks

[Hortz]

They are correct regarding the DPA.

 

 

A SAR entitles you to any information they hold ON YOU.

Standard sales scripts are not information they hold on you they are just general documents.

 

As regards going to court, I wouldn't advocate it as you are likely to lose.

 

 

Your argument is that you ticked no to PPI on the original application form.

 

 

Theirs will be that it was sold perfectly willingly during a subsequent telephone conversation,

which is evidenced by the fact that you never once queried the monthly PPI which appeared clearly on every statement.

 

 

12 years (or whatever) later, you have forgotten doing so.

 

 

However, the law requires them to destroy customer information when it is no longer thought necessary to keep it.

They do not expect people to buy insurance policies and then come back over a decade later claiming they didn't.

Hence they have long since destroyed calls from that date. Unfortunate, but they are only following the law.

 

Up to you whether you think your argument is strong enough

but the burden of proof is on you and there are court costs etc..

. to consider if you lose.

[dx100uk]

not querying PPI on an account for 12yrs in no way justifies or backs up cap1's claim that the punter latterly signed up by telephone.

 

 

we need to see the original refusal letter please

 

 

I would also say that you can goto the FOS, esp as they have refused to evidence their claim regarding the acceptance in a call.

 

 

they MUST provide you with the evidence they are using to base their decision upon.

 

 

as you have been in regular contact with cap1, the FOS I'm sure will be interested.

give them a ring and ask.

 

 

I have pers just re-opened a claim with shop direct for exactly the same reasons and 18mts down the line

the FOS have accepted the claim and are now asking SD to produce the evidence theyused to rebuff the claim

which from several attempts to get the info SD have refused to budge, continually like you

simply referring to the initial 'final response' and not providing the evidence

 

 

go to the FOS.

 

 

dx

[grak444]

Sorry Hortz,

 

In this instance I disagree with your comments as FOS have upheld claims previously to already paid PPI monies.

[grak444]

Hi DX,

 

I've uploaded the original letter I sent to them previously and also their response in that the state this is final.

 

My query is that i'm unlikely to get FOS to review after the delay's there's been to me responding and following up (I had to put back due to family issues and life priorities).

Would the courts view the same response from Cap One as final in that I wouldnt be allowed to pursue?

[mightymouse_69]

Sorry Hortz,

 

In this instance I disagree with your comments as FOS have upheld claims previously to already paid PPI monies.

 

Don't forget that FOS operates differently to the courts when it comes to evidence and how it reaches its decisions. When someone makes an allegation, FOS will expect the business to answer it. FOS will weigh up both sides using its own approach.

 

In court, there is a much higher burden on the claimant (you) to prove your case. It is something you should think very carefully about - and I certainly would take care when relying on FOS decisions having considered, as I said above, the differences in their process compared to the courts.

[dx100uk]

ideally you need to remove bar and other codes from up loads.

 

 

dx

[grak444]

My Concerns are:

 

Considering the FOS are taking up to 2 years to get to claims currently would me going down that route put my claim outside of any claim window in place potentially.

 

Secondly, having seen identical situations to mine being upheld in the FOS library, would going down the court route for a much quicker resolution aid my claim in that I can prove that PPI was sold to me innapropriately?

 

Thanks for your consideration too in assisiting.

 

Regards

[grak444]

Another point they are making very clear about FOS is the following in their responses is that they feel this case is time barred (see letter extract):

 

"In addition, we feel that the FOS is unable to arbirate onthis case as we believe this complaint to be time barred.

The reason why we feel this is duw to DISP rule 2.8.2 whichstates:

The ombudsman cannot consider a complaint if the complainantrefers it to the FOS if:

(1) More thansix months after the date on which the respondent sent the complaint its finalresponse or

(2) More than:

(a) Six yearsafter the event complained of; or (if later)

(b) Threeyears from the date on which the complainent became aware or ought resonably tohave become aware) that he had cause for complaint.

 

As we responded to your complaint in November 2012 more thansix months have passed since you were made aware of our decision, As a result,our decision in this matter will not change".

I'm simply looking for guidance from those experts in litigation as to wether it is worth my while carryin on in this instance considering the time passed to which they originally mentioned they would not consider further and if the courts would look at this aspect also?

Regards

[grak444]

Don't forget that FOS operates differently to the courts when it comes to evidence and how it reaches its decisions. When someone makes an allegation, FOS will expect the business to answer it. FOS will weigh up both sides using its own approach.

 

In court, there is a much higher burden on the claimant (you) to prove your case. It is something you should think very carefully about - and I certainly would take care when relying on FOS decisions having considered, as I said above, the differences in their process compared to the courts.

 

Mightmouse - Hving been in full time emplyment during the periods of claim in a secure role and industry at the time, there would be no need for me to have such insurance hence me ticking "No" at the time of requesting the card.

 

It's this aspect that i'm pursueing and as such can prove in this light that I was inn-appropriately mis-sold a policy that was not fit for my needs at the time.

 

Would this approach not prove that my requirements did not need insurance at the time?

[dx100uk]

I have had several cases taken up by the FOS that were outside 6mts

 

 

PPI claims cannot be statute barred

its when 'you' became aware of the PPI not from its date or any other date

 

 

also the 3yrs rul doesn't apply either.

 

 

strange they are issuing so many 'excuses' as to why you cant continue this claim?

 

 

somethings up

they obv want you to drop it...I wonder why?

 

 

why not ring the FOS and ask

 

 

simple really,

[mightymouse_69]

Mightmouse - Hving been in full time emplyment during the periods of claim in a secure role and industry at the time, there would be no need for me to have such insurance hence me ticking "No" at the time of requesting the card.

 

It's this aspect that i'm pursueing and as such can prove in this light that I was inn-appropriately mis-sold a policy that was not fit for my needs at the time.

 

Would this approach not prove that my requirements did not need insurance at the time?

 

Probably not.

PPI policies generally offer better benefits than those offered by employers.

 

 

Many people would find the cover given by the PPI policy to be useful in addition to their employer benefits

- for example, you could have used your employers sick pay for whatever you wanted

without having to worry about your credit card repayments, since these were covered.

 

I do see where you are coming from though and I appreciate that you feel strongly about this.

 

Clearly whether you take it further is a matter for you

- you just need to be aware that it will be somewhat of an uphill struggle.

 

The first hurdle is how to take it further.

 

 

All I can say is that FOS is almost certainly not an option because of the time issue.

 

 

The best they can do is take the complaint on and then look into whether it is indeed out of their time limits.

 

 

This will probably take the best part of two years - and it is likely to be bad news.

[grak444]

Probably not. PPI policies generally offer better benefits than those offered by employers. Many people would find the cover given by the PPI policy to be useful in addition to their employer benefits - for example, you could have used your employers sick pay for whatever you wanted without having to worry about your credit card repayments, since these were covered.

 

I do see where you are coming from though and I appreciate that you feel strongly about this.

 

Clearly whether you take it further is a matter for you - you just need to be aware that it will be somewhat of an uphill struggle.

 

The first hurdle is how to take it further. All I can say is that FOS is almost certainly not an option because of the time issue. The best they can do is take the complaint on and then look into whether it is indeed out of their time limits. This will probably take the best part of two years - and it is likely to be bad news.

 

 

Mightmouse,

 

 

It seems odd that identical claims to mine openly visible on the official FOS site have been upheld with Cap One being forced to pay. As dx mentions, PPI is not time barred as Cap One would make out either.

 

 

I'd be keen to understand your thought process and where you're evidence sits in order that you think I should not be entitled to clearly what has been a total miss-selling saga.

 

 

I shall continue my quest and have contacted FOS officially now. I have a follow up call to make on Friday for some further information they needed to source for me.

 

Regards