ppi reclaim on egg card online application

SHEEP_2

Hello,
I am currently going through the exact same as you folks at the minute.
I have sent my complaint to the FOS and have had a reply in that they have sent the complaint to EGG and await there reply.

I also sent EGG a request for my DSIR and they have mailed me all the details relating to my account, this includes all statements since the account wa opened screenshots of my application etc.

The only thing i have not found was where on my online application was the checkbox that gave me the option to have PPI or not.

When i went through every page of the 400 pages they sent me i decided to call them and ask for the said screenshots.

I was initially sent through various people but finally reached someone with a little bit of savy and after explaining what i expected from the paperwork that arrived she could not see where the PPI was selected but did say that i would receive a letter in due course.

This is not the first time i have been told this by the people at EGG, so as far as i can see is that they do not have any screen images where this was indeed selected by me.

This call was on the 24th Dec so i will wait to see what arrives in the new year

Have a good one and i will keep you updated.

SHEEP

Linz2

When completing the on-line application form, for an EggCard in 2001, I un-ticked this “Insurance” check box. I happened to navigate back through the screens to correct a typing error and noticed that the insurance check box wasticked again. I un-ticked it a second time and completed the application.

Once my statements came through, I noticed that I WAS being charged for the insurance after all. This irritated me, but I assumed that perhaps the insurance was compulsory in order for me to have the Egg Card, so I just accepted it. I remember thinking that it was a poor interface design to have a check box that could be un-ticked, but the value of “TRUE”was retained in the database. I also wondered if I navigated through the screen again, causing the check box to populate with a tick, triggered by a re-visit to the screen, but didn’t notice it the third time.

I have to state however, that this is from memory and I do not have evidence for this. But I am a software tester and I notice software functionality and data capture methods in detail, as it was and still is my job to do so. Also, I paid particular attention when applying for a credit cardon-line and giving so many personal details, as I was nervous about doing so at the time.

It’s only through recent PPI awareness, that I now know that this Insurance would not have been compulsory and I feel outraged to think that Egg may have forced insurance onto people through its website, knowing they probably wouldn’t notice this check-box.

I strongly suspect Egg Card deliberately setup the insurance check box to re-populate, knowing that most applicants using the web-site would not notice this. I have seen several comments from people on-line saying “because I completed the form on-line I MUST have opted in” or “I do not believe that this product was a selection thatI made during the application process” or “Can you tell me if anyone has actually been successful in claiming PPI on an on-line application Egg card. Ihave had 2 'no' letters saying I ticked the box when I do not believe I did”.

These comments back up my belief that Egg fixed this field to remain ticked and record the value as TRUE, in the database, adding insurance to people’s applications who did not want it or request it. There were pages of questions to complete and this was one small check-box that would easily go unnoticed, especially if itwas pre-populated with a tick.

I think the FSA would be very interested to know about this, if they don’t know already.

dunstonh

I think the FSA would be very interested to know about this, if they don’t know already.

The FSA dont involve themselves in consumer complaints and would not be interested. When they pay visits to firms, they look at the complaints at a corporate level to see if there are issues.

[Deleted User]

Linz2 wrote: »

I think the FSA would be very interested to know about this, if they don’t know already.

Of course they are aware, it's well documented that lenders used a pre-ticked box for some online sales. The practice was deemed unfair and all lenders agreed to cease employing this in July 2007.
The problem you have is to prove that your application 12 years ago definitely had a pre-ticked box. The practice was not always employed and some lenders didn't use it at all.


This thread is from 2009.

harty999

Can anyone confirm or deny that egg used the pre ticked box in 2000?

McKneff

Linz2, the post you responded to is nearly 4 years old, !!!!!!

Mac66

Hi All, good luck with your cases, i have just received letter from ombudsman advising complaint not upheld with egg, first wrote to FSO in March 2012. The outcome has been based on that i completed a online application form in May 2004, the main reason not to uphold is that, i have selected and ticked the option of PPI, on the grounds of that i selected the option and that i was eligible,and that by doing so i must have acknowledged that it had been made clear to me.
When discussing with the FSO, i requested a copy of the online application process as i cannot recall completing this section, i also had not been supplied this info from Egg following my original complaint with them and SAR request.
FSO have supplied a copy, however the document appears to be a copy and does not relate to my account or application.
Not quite sure what to do now, looks to be a lost case as i cannot prove otherwise.

[Deleted User]

Mac66 wrote: »

FSO have supplied a copy, however the document appears to be a copy and does not relate to my account or application.

They are allowed to send a re-constituted document showing how it would have looked at the time of your application.
Since online applications are not sold or advised by bank staff your PPI was mis bought rather than mis-sold.
Referring your case does not change this. Remember, in law he who asserts must prove so it is up to you to provide proof that your online application was flawed in some way. Just because you can't remember completing the relevant section does not mean you did not.

Mac66 wrote: »

Good luck with all your cases

Many of the other posters on this thread were making their complaint four years ago. This thread was bumped for some unknown reason.