MSE News: Card protection mis-selling: Are you due share of £1.3 billion?

What's the situation if you have/had Cardholder Protection on a fee paying bank acount?

About time!
I had a Tesco CC with this on, I have previously argued this was not requested or wanted (I thought it was PPI) however they wouldn't refund.

Am I correct in thinking that I will received notification through the post if I am eligible for a refund? Also I don't have any paperwork now, as I no longer have the card I got rid of the statements will this be a problem?

Neil-d the scheme only applies to CPP policies so I'm afraid Sentinel customers are not included.

RustyPots, according to the news releases letters will be issued to those included in the refund pot starting on the 29th August. As there are up to 7 million people being contacted I would imagine the letters may take a few weeks to deliver!

callum9999 wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious how so many millions of people keep getting "missold" things. While I don't doubt some staff lie during the application process, do none of these people actually read the contract? Or is the misselling part because they weren't given a contract? The reasons listed on the article for why it was missold seem pretty tame to me.

With most of CPP's policies, the protection offered no more than the protection given by law by the bank. It was in effect a useless policy, but many people were led into thinking that it was needed, with scare stories given during the sales process. It actually protected the bank, both saving them money and making them some commission at the same time (which is why the banks are also paying out). Some of the policies were sold by an 'activation' sticker on a card. The reality is that the card did not need to be activated and the calls were actually answered by CPP staff, but getting the customer to sign up under that condition put them in a position where they were under pressure. The FCA have deemed that most of these policies were therefore mis-sold as the sales practice was not in the customers interests.

It's the same with PPI - there were many situations where the way in which it was sold was unfair on the customer - opt out boxes instead of opt in, online applications that wouldn't progress without selecting PPI, the sticker on the card trick as above, not listing medical conditions/employment situations where someone wouldn't be covered, or sales scripts that were obviously hard selling instead of letting the customer decide on the purchase.

There are unfortunately a few people who made a conscious decision to purchase who would have been covered, where they feel that having insurance policies that are part of a mis-selling campaign entitles them to a payout. Sadly, people like this are often led on by the countless adverts and spam calls from claims companies which seem to paint the whole situation in this light and claims management companies that hard sell their services.