Bemused at adjudicator's notes...

Common_Sense_2

Trust me - the FOS are not being soft on the banks!

mutron_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The adjudicator uses the term "may not". Which also covers off "may have". From that they appear to be saying that they may not have told you but then they may have. In other words there is no proof to back up your claims. You have edited the response to only show part of it so its impossible for us to place it in context. You also dont say what type of PPI it is.

Based on what you have said, their response seems reasonable but we are having to go on a lot of assumptions because of your editing and lack of information.

Sorry, I guess I was just taken aback by the assumption made by the adjudicator. I don't have the letter to hand but basically it reads along the lines of:

They may not have properly explained the benefits of the policy but that does not mean that you wouldn't have taken it.

marshallka

mutron wrote: »

Sorry, I guess I was just taken aback by the assumption made by the adjudicator. I don't have the letter to hand but basically it reads along the lines of:

They may not have properly explained the benefits of the policy but that does not mean that you wouldn't have taken it.

And had it been properly explained to you would you have taken it out?

mutron_2

It's actually my wife's claim but, no, her argument is that it was never explained that the policy was optional (which the adjudicator seems to have completely ignored).

mutron_2

Also, as the credit limit for the credit card was so low (£500), she was still living at home and with enhanced sickness benefit at work, there wasn't an issue of struggling with repayments should the need arise therefore, had the policy been described as optional, it wouldn't have been taken.

marshallka

mutron wrote: »

Also, as the credit limit for the credit card was so low (£500), she was still living at home and with enhanced sickness benefit at work, there wasn't an issue of struggling with repayments should the need arise therefore, had the policy been described as optional, it wouldn't have been taken.

Have you explained this to the adjudicator?

dunstonh

It's FOS speak. There are certain words you need to look out for.

"would" and "could".
"may have" and "will have".

"may" is used when it cant be proven that any wrong doing has taken place.

They may not have properly explained the benefits of the policy but that does not mean that you wouldn't have taken it.

In that context of that it sounds like they are saying that even if that was the case, there is no evidence to say it wouldnt have been taken.

It looks like a balance of probabilities decision (as so many are). There doesnt appear to be enough evidence to support your complaint.

her argument is that it was never explained that the policy was optional (which the adjudicator seems to have completely ignored).

And can she prove that?

Also, as the credit limit for the credit card was so low (£500), she was still living at home and with enhanced sickness benefit at work, there wasn't an issue of struggling with repayments should the need arise therefore, had the policy been described as optional, it wouldn't have been taken.

Was that stated in the complaint or was a template letter used with no personalisation?

mutron_2

marshallka wrote: »

Have you explained this to the adjudicator?

Absolutely and has been repeated in our appeal.

dunstonh wrote: »

It's FOS speak. There are certain words you need to look out for.

"would" and "could".
"may have" and "will have".

"may" is used when it cant be proven that any wrong doing has taken place.

In that context of that it sounds like they are saying that even if that was the case, there is no evidence to say it wouldnt have been taken.

It looks like a balance of probabilities decision (as so many are). There doesnt appear to be enough evidence to support your complaint.

Fair comment but when the adjudicator leaves out key bits of information from his notes then are we to presume that either a) they are not relevant to his findings or b) he has disregarded them?

dunstonh wrote: »

And can she prove that?

No but how can anyone prove that the lender hadn't made it clear that the policy was optional?

dunstonh wrote: »

Was that stated in the complaint or was a template letter used with no personalisation?

We didn't use a template letter so everything was personalised.

mutron_2

There is one other thing...the PPI box was ticked prior to signing the agreement. It was in pen but it is obvious that it was not done by my wife by the style in which it was done.

marshallka

I would just ask that it be looked at again and hope they will see it differently this time. It is annoying that you would have to prove your statements and the firm not having to prove theirs. It is a case of your word against theirs at the moment and it seems the adjudicator may have taken theirs for some reason.