RBS Royalties Gold Account

Ronco198 · 9 October 2016 at 9:33PM

My wife and I held this account for over ten years believing that the travel insurance and mobile phone insurance benefits alone justified the monthly fee. It was sold to us by a bank advisor during our financial health check.
We neither needed or used any other benefit of the account.
All appeared well until 2013 (ndeed the mobile phone insurance paid out on a claim for my son's lost mobile in 2011).
However having seen a TV appearance by Martin on travel insurance I realised around mid 2013 that we had never actually been fully covered during numerous holidays over the period we had held the account. In addition a claim for damage to my son's mobile - I.e. the one which the insurance had previously replaced - was rejected because my son was no longer covered as the policy was ow provided by another company under gif fervent t&c's.
I submitted a complaint at the time but the bank rejected the complaint indicating that I was responsible for ensuring that the t&c's of all benefits were applicable. I had thought they may take this line and countered that bank staff had verbally assured me on several occasions that the phone and travel insurances were providing me with savings during their regular customer "financial health checks".
However this was dismissed and they advised that they would not refund any of the fees paid.
Unfortunately personal circumstances prevented me from pursuing the case to the Ombudsman at that point however recent publicity about similar misselling led me to submit an appeal this year and after asking for an explanation for the delay (satisfactorily accepted) the Ombudsman agreed to progress the case.
RBS apparently though can refuse to co-operate if they do not accept the reason for delay and surprise, surprise that is what they have done.
Do I have any other options - e.g. can I submit a new complaint based on the recent publicity about these accounts - or am I now time barred as is being stated?
If someone steals money from a bank I'm sure they would not accept that it could not be recovered after three years with the miscreant being allowed to keep his booty by simply saying he wouldn't discuss the matter! If that is the case then there is definitely something amiss with the legal aspects of the financial sector.

Nearlyold · 10 October 2016 at 8:13AM

What was it about the travel insurance T&Cs that meant you were not fully covered?

Nasqueron · 10 October 2016 at 9:05AM

Ronco198 wrote: »

My wife and I held this account for over ten years believing that the travel insurance and mobile phone insurance benefits alone justified the monthly fee. It was sold to us by a bank advisor during our financial health check.
We neither needed or used any other benefit of the account.
All appeared well until 2013 (ndeed the mobile phone insurance paid out on a claim for my son's lost mobile in 2011).
However having seen a TV appearance by Martin on travel insurance I realised around mid 2013 that we had never actually been fully covered during numerous holidays over the period we had held the account. In addition a claim for damage to my son's mobile - I.e. the one which the insurance had previously replaced - was rejected because my son was no longer covered as the policy was ow provided by another company under gif fervent t&c's.
I submitted a complaint at the time but the bank rejected the complaint indicating that I was responsible for ensuring that the t&c's of all benefits were applicable. I had thought they may take this line and countered that bank staff had verbally assured me on several occasions that the phone and travel insurances were providing me with savings during their regular customer "financial health checks".
However this was dismissed and they advised that they would not refund any of the fees paid.
Unfortunately personal circumstances prevented me from pursuing the case to the Ombudsman at that point however recent publicity about similar misselling led me to submit an appeal this year and after asking for an explanation for the delay (satisfactorily accepted) the Ombudsman agreed to progress the case.
RBS apparently though can refuse to co-operate if they do not accept the reason for delay and surprise, surprise that is what they have done.
Do I have any other options - e.g. can I submit a new complaint based on the recent publicity about these accounts - or am I now time barred as is being stated?
If someone steals money from a bank I'm sure they would not accept that it could not be recovered after three years with the miscreant being allowed to keep his booty by simply saying he wouldn't discuss the matter! If that is the case then there is definitely something amiss with the legal aspects of the financial sector.

The FOS rules (note, not the bank's) state any rejected complaint must be referred to them within 6 months, this is more than enough time to refer any such complaint and it is this time bar they have applied to your complaint. There is nothing amiss with the legal aspects, you have 1/2 a year to refer the complaint, something that can be done in 5 minutes online or by posting a letter, nobody is so busy they cannot do that

Someone who borrows money and is unable to pay it back has the slate wiped clean after 6 years and any new lenders would not know what the borrower has done (unless they were a bankrupt), it's just the way the finance system works

-taff · 10 October 2016 at 9:28AM

You made a complaint and were rejected. They informed you you could go to the Ombudsman, but you chose not to [no-one is constanty totally busy for 6 months no matter what the cicumstances, unless they were in a coma].
Because you chose not to, your complaint has been rejected. There is no further avenue for you go down because you used up and ignored the chance that you had to complain further.

Your complaint is over.

dunstonh · 10 October 2016 at 11:06AM

Unfortunately personal circumstances prevented me from pursuing the case to the Ombudsman at that point however recent publicity about similar misselling led me to submit an appeal this year and after asking for an explanation for the delay (satisfactorily accepted) the Ombudsman agreed to progress the case.

The FOS dont "satisfactorily accept" this as you suggest.

If the FOS decide to overrule the timebar then it is their decision. Not the bank. If the FOS decide not to overrule the timebar, they will ask the firm if they are willing to waive it voluntarily. The firm said no.

So, in your case, the FOS did not agree with your reasons for delay as being sufficient to overrule the timebar.

Do I have any other options - e.g. can I submit a new complaint based on the recent publicity about these accounts - or am I now time barred as is being stated?

You made your complaint. You are timebarred. That is it. You cant start new complaints to avoid the timebar. A new complaint will be referred back to the original decision.

If someone steals money from a bank I'm sure they would not accept that it could not be recovered after three years with the miscreant being allowed to keep his booty by simply saying he wouldn't discuss the matter! If that is the case then there is definitely something amiss with the legal aspects of the financial sector.

Theft and alleged missale are two different things. And timebars do exist in law. Regulated financial services companies actually get less protection as the legal timebars are more stringent than the financial services timebars.

Ronco198 · 10 October 2016 at 1:31PM

The reason I did not get around to submitting an appeal to the Ombudsman were serious medical issues within my family and the Ombudsman accepted those reasons as reasonable. I am not saying I didn't have a few minutes (indeed I had phoned within a few days of receiving RBS's last communication to enquire about appealing) but due to unforeseen events shortly thereafter I was not in a place where arguing with RBS or the Ombudsman were an immediate priority.
As for filling in the form in 5 minute that may be correct in terms of standard information but to submit all the pertinent info and documentation took several hours in preparation, editing and compilation.
As for the timescale my point is why should the bank have the right to refuse to co-operate within three years of the last fee paid when they were taking those fees for over ten years.
Anyway thanks for the feedback which seems to indicate RBS got away with it this time although some diplomacy and less condemnation and sarcasm without full knowledge of facts would have been appreciated.

[Deleted User] · 10 October 2016 at 1:42PM

Ronco198 wrote: »

The reason I did not get around to submitting an appeal to the Ombudsman were serious medical issues within my family and the Ombudsman accepted those reasons as reasonable.

The Ombudsman did not accept your reasons at all, they merely asked the Bank if they were willing to waive the time limit voluntarily. The Bank declined to do this.
If the Ombudsman had accepted your reasons for delay, they would have simply overruled the Timebar without recourse to the Bank.

Ronco198 wrote: »

As for the timescale my point is why should the bank have the right to refuse to co-operate within three yearsof the last fee paid when they were taking those fees for over ten years.

It's your whole complaint (already long ago rejected) that is time barred. The Bank didn't refuse to "co-operate", they have already considered your concerns and rejected them.

You really have nowhere else to go with this...

Nasqueron · 10 October 2016 at 1:46PM

Ronco198 wrote: »

The reason I did not get around to submitting an appeal to the Ombudsman were serious medical issues within my family and the Ombudsman accepted those reasons as reasonable. I am not sayingI didn't have a few minutes but that I was not in a place where arguing with RBS or the Ombudsman were an immediate priority.
As for filling in the form in 5 minute that may be correct in terms of standard information but to submit all the pertinent info and documentation took several hours in preparation, editing and compilation.
As for the timescale my point is why should the bank have the right to refuse to co-operate within three yearsof the last fee paid when they were taking those fees for over ten years.

I think you might be mixed up - you don't need to recreate the whole original complaint to refer to the FOS, they will simply ask the bank for their evidence and copies of the complaint.

You have 2 separate time frames in your favour - 3 years from when you could reasonably have known about the reason for complaint and 6 years from when the product was taken out AND the six months to refer to the FOS after a complaint.

If you were paying the fees for 10 years why did you not complain 10 years ago? Or 5 years ago?

You need to provide compelling and detailed reasons why the 6 month time bar should not be applied (i.e. why you were unable to do the complaint in the 6 months) - if you did this the FOS are able to over turn the time bar. As they have simply asked the bank to re-open and the bank said no, that shows the FOS did not accept your reasons were sufficient

dunstonh · 10 October 2016 at 2:09PM

As for the timescale my point is why should the bank have the right to refuse to co-operate within three years of the last fee paid when they were taking those fees for over ten years.

You seem to be hit by multiple timebars. Not just the 6 month referral to the FOS but the 3 year/6 year complaint timescale.

Time bars exist in law. They are actually more stringent than financial services timebars. In financial services, you have to raise a complaint within 6 years of the date of the purchase or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue. Whichever gives you the longer. So, in this case, the 3 year period gives the longer as its 3 years after the end of the payments.

You had over 13 years to complain. Yet you didnt. Timebars exist for multiple reasons but two key reasons are that data and information gets destroyed over time by law (data protection act). So, firms have to be protected from people waiting until the data is destroyed and then putting in a complaint that it would have little chance of having evidence on. Secondly, there has to be a close to issues. They cannot be left open forever.

Anyway thanks for the feedback which seems to indicate RBS got away with it this time

It may be worth noting that even if the FOS had been able to look at it, they only uphold 11% of packaged bank account complaints. It is not like PPI. The FOS have no issues with packaged bank accounts as a product offering.

All appeared well until 2013 (ndeed the mobile phone insurance paid out on a claim for my son's lost mobile in 2011).
However having seen a TV appearance by Martin on travel insurance I realised around mid 2013 that we had never actually been fully covered during numerous holidays over the period we had held the account. In addition a claim for damage to my son's mobile - I.e. the one which the insurance had previously replaced - was rejected because my son was no longer covered as the policy was ow provided by another company under gif fervent t&c's.

Going back to that
1 - Effectively you are likely to be better off because of this failure. Lets say they upheld the complaint. They would need to price what you were paying against a standalone travel insurance policy covering you for whatever extra it is that you think was needed. So, it wouldnt be a refund but a difference in the cost, if any.
2 - You cannot be multiple insured for things. It is quite normal, where there are two policies providing overlapping cover, for one to have priority. Your son made a mistake by purchasing cover he didnt need. So, maybe he should complain to the shop that sold it and get it refunded as that was taken AFTER the package account. At point of sale of the package account (which is all that matters for mis-sale complaints) he would not have had that insurance.

-taff · 11 October 2016 at 3:33AM

Ronco198 wrote: »

... some diplomacy and less condemnation and sarcasm without full knowledge of facts would have been appreciated.

This is not a board where hands are held. It's for information only, and facts. If you don't supply the facts, we don't include them in the answers.

You got that information. There is no condemnation or sarcasm, there are only facts. You are reading them as if they are personal, they aren't.

Ronco198 · 17 October 2016 at 7:24PM

Okay folks the info was appreciated and I accept I could have given a lot more detail which would have helped you guys in understanding and replying.
I definitely erred in not making sure I progressed the matter to the Ombudsman within the timescale provided and, no matter the strength or otherwise of the case, that alone let RBS off the hook in terms of having to justify their decision.
That was all I really wanted confirmed - c'est la vie!

RBS Royalties Gold Account

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free