Reclaiming PPI from GE money/Santander. Help!?

-taff

they have up to 8 weeks.

Santander also refuse any pre 2005 complaint. So if your card was bought before this, they'll refuse it. Then you have to complain to Genworth who don't have to refund either, but may well do.

jase.2

I have a case with Debenhams Card from 1998 where Santander have rejected and sent me final response saying it was "an informed sale" and my obligation to check that it wasnt suitable for me.

The card was taken in a Debenhams store, from them offering 10% discount, however the PPI was unsuitable as I have pre existing medical conditions around my back going back a long time as well as being told I had to have the insurance (can only imagine the store staff got bonus)

I cancelled the PPI in 2003 when I realised I didnt need to have it, but had forgotten all about it until I went through a box of old papers a few months ago and found it on the statements going back to 1998, at the same time I found it on an Alliance & Leicester credit card taken in a branch.

Santander dealt with the A&L complaint very easily - same reasons that it wouldnt have paid out had I claimed - without even filling in forms I had £1100 back within 3 weeks.

But Santander Cards have been the total opposite, ignoring the fact that it wouldnt have paid out, ignoring that surely a member of Alliance & Leicester staff should have been more reliable at explaining PPI than a Saturday girl in Debenhams and therefore they continually refused to comment on the inconsistency of response from 2 different Santander depts for exactly the same set of circumstances around the same period.

I then went to Genworth, who initially refused to look at it as Santander Cards had given a final response, but then did. Yesterday I got a letter rejecting the claim - the letter has inconsistencies on it.

They refer to "Santander have advised that your policy was not mis-sold as there was insufficient evidence to support your allegation that the policy was mis-sold"

Genworth then go on to explain their reasons for rejection as "The evidence available indications that you were made aware of the main terms and conditions of the PPI policy, including exclusions and limitations that would have applied" It goes on to advise that it could have been cancelled at any time and that I should go to FOS if im dissatisfied.

Im astounded that Santander admit an Alliance & Leicester staff member mis-sold me and that a Debenhams cashier didnt mis-sell me, if anything id have expected the other way around. Not sure how Genworth are so sure that I was made aware of the correct terms, when Santander said there was insufficient evidence.

Sounds like Santander say one thing, Genworth say another but both meaning - no

So sorry for the long post but any advise as to whether anyone has been successful after communications like this would be appreciated, before I waste more of my time chasing a case I have no chance of winning, I have seen the comments on posts suggesting FLA wont do much.

Thanks in advance

[Deleted User]

jase.2 wrote: »

any advise as to whether anyone has been successful after communications like this would be appreciated, before I waste more of my time chasing a case I have no chance of winning,

This is a pre-regulation complaint and, as you've approached both the Bank and the insurer and been rejected by both, your complaint is now over. You have no access to the Ombudsman and there is no one else to complain to.. I'm afraid you had a weak "hearsay" complaint that you were told the insurance was compulsory and why do you think a back problem would invalidate the insurance? Your mention of "inconsistencies" is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Regardless, time to move on from this..

jase.2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

This is a pre-regulation complaint and, as you've approached both the Bank and the insurer and been rejected by both, your complaint is now over. You have no access to the Ombudsman and there is no one else to complain to.. I'm afraid you had a weak "hearsay" complaint that you were told the insurance was compulsory and why do you think a back problem would invalidate the insurance? Your mention of "inconsistencies" is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

Regardless, time to move on from this..

erm because the terms of the policy make it pretty clear it would never have paid out on a claim due to pre existing medical conditions - hence mis-sold in my view and obviously mis-sold in the view of the Santander person who dealt with the Alliance & Leicester credit card claim which was 1997.

You mention "hearsay" but isnt this what an awful lot of mis-selling is about? Bank / Shop / Reseller staff telling you that you have to take it?

[Deleted User]

jase.2 wrote: »

erm because the terms of the policy make it pretty clear it would never have paid out on a claim due to pre existing medical conditions

The terms of the policy are that claims arising from pre-existing medical conditions would be excluded. So you would only have been precluded from claiming if your Back problem led directly to you being unemployed.

You mention the other complaint, but do be aware that Banks don't actually tell you why they are upholding and they can do so ignoring the actual complaint reasons you gave if they find something else wrong with the sale.
Regardless, the other complaint is completely irrelevant since it was sold by different people in different circumstances.

jase.2 wrote: »

You mention "hearsay" but isnt this what an awful lot of mis-selling is about? Bank / Shop / Reseller staff telling you that you have to take it?

This reason is given a lot in complaints, but in the absence of other verifiable reasons, it is universally rejected because no evidence of this will ever be present.

Do remember, it is not I you need to convince.