Mbna PPI refusal

[anney63]

Hi All

Need some help please. Have received a letter from MBNA re PPI on my credit card. Firstly they state that PPI was added after the accpint was opened on 17th Nov. 1998 a phone call on 25th Nov 1998 . I can only think that this was a phone call they made to me.

 

They are also saying saying that I ought to have brought the complaint sooner as per the tome limits set out in the FCA handbook. They also state that I should have known I had PPi from 4 years statements and letters about change of insurers .

 

Also stated that a case highlighted by the recent Supreme Court Plevin v Paragon could affect my case so they are not prepared to send a final response.

 

Can anyone give me an idea of what response I should send

 

 

Any Help would be great thank you

[dx100uk]

seems a bit strange to me that they say this is why you cant have a reclaim - you did this

then state well anyway its statute barred so you cant have it back anyway..

 

why do both??

 

me thinks their talking rubbish on both counts.

 

PPI SB date runs from when you real;ised the PPI could be reclaimed

 

and if they've not got a transcript of the phonecall

how do they know what was said or agreed too.

 

it was probably a phone jockey earning backdoor commission by ringing you and selling you it by saying it was compulsory..

 

is this your sons old abbey/MNBA card?

 

or it it this one?

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?472335-Debenhams-Santander-and-Genworth&p=4973971#post4973971

[anney63]

No neither been guiding a friend as I have done a few for family.

 

 

I looked at this and thought the same as you but was worried they said that letters had been sent changing insurance terms and conditions .

 

This card hasn't been used since 2009 and yet they said at the end of the letter they have now cancelled ppi .

 

I think I'm going back to them with a nice letter in response .

 

Also no copy of any letters in the SAR pack.

 

This card was applied for at a motor show at end of October he remembers being called .

 

Wasn't the case mentioned something to do with commission.

The box on the form wasn't ticked either.

 

Not given up or waiting .

Helping him compose a letter.

 

Nice to hear from you Dx glad to see your still helping people .

[dx100uk]

ah the old button holing at a stand jobbie

 

yes a very good earner for the sellers in their little booths or wandering around

they used to get commission for every PPI plan they sold

 

so the usual game was to tick the box after the punter had signed up.

 

so they are saying it was done on the phone um... I don't buy that one meself..:lol:

[anney63]

Hi again DX100

 

Am I interpreting the fact rule 2.8.2 correctly .

 

The 3 years is from the time the complainant becomes aware .

 

I received the SAR around 10 weeks ago showing that my friend had ppi

that is when he became aware

how can they say he had statements for 4 years and should have claimed years ago .

 

The account has not been used since 2009.

This seems a real cheek and purely conjecture on their part .

 

the account application clearly has the no ticked.

I have written and asked for transcript of the phone call and if this isn't available how can it be proved that ppi was sold then and if so correctly as there is nothing sent in the subject access request showing it being sold at all.

 

Any other info I need to include please advise .

 

Taken me ages to do a letter thanks again for help

[mightymouse_69]

Hi again DX100 Am I interpreting the fact rule 2.8.2 correctly . The 3 years is from the time the complainant becomes aware .

 

Or ought reasonably to have become aware.

 

If they've been sending statements showing PPI, then depending upon what your complaint point is, this could time bar the complaint.

[dx100uk]

like the way theres nowt in the sar about the phone call PPI sign up opps!

[anney63]

Hi again

there is nothing about the phone call in the sar.

 

The no box was ticked on the application .

I've done quite a few of these and never had this before .

 

There's even a 0 against ppi on their internal paperwork .

 

How would anyone in 1998 know on a new card what it was.

Also no statements since 2009.

 

Could the case of only just applying for sar be used as just finding confirmation be used .

He really wasn't aware until he received the sar and showed me old statements.

 

will they be using this argument on all the older claims .

 

They did a review of credit limit in 1999 and that shows a 1 against ppi .

 

In the latter years the card had minimal use and even closed in credit .

 

Oh well have to fight. Thanks do

[anney63]

Hi All just looked at section 32 of the limitations Act. Could that not be used ???

[anney63]

Hi DX100

Can you please look at the attached and advise if this would be a good response not good at letters at all .

 

Appreciate your help

 

 

 

 

 

Re Your letter dated 1st December 2016. Please review your response as per the following points:-

1. Dispute Resolution Rule 2.8.2 of the FCA handbook states “3 years after the complainant became aware”(or reasonably aware) Stating that I was aware is pure conjecture on your part. This card has not been used since 2009 , no statements have been received. I was not aware until I applied for my Subject Access Request recently. Please see SAR request number 4513769. Therefore this rule nor the 6 year rule applies. My application clearly shows the NO to payment protection box has been ticked on 29th October 1998(copy enclosed). I applied for this at the Motor Show 29/10/1998.

 

2. I would not have needed PPI as I had a sickness package in my employment. The low credit limit on the account would have been covered within my monthly salary as a manager.

 

3. A transcript of the phone call was not sent with my SAR when all was requested or in fact any record of a call being made. Please send proof of how and if I requested PPI or was it a case of someone selling it to me. If that is the case the transcript is necessary as proof. Saying PPI was purchased in a phone call does not necessarily mean it was sold correctly or in fact was that call anything to do with PPI. There is absolutely nothing in my SAR package which mentions this so where does the information come from. It means that against the Information Commissioners Office rules paperwork has not been supplied.

 

4. You state that letters were sent re the insurance. Again none of these were enclosed with SAR package. I do not remember receiving any letters. I have other MBNA accounts and have no recollection of receiving these on those accounts either.

 

5. The case of Plevin v Paragon has more to do with commission being paid and not disclosed to the applicant rather that mis-sold PPI.

 

With this information I would ask that you please review this claim and send a more favourable response.