Bemused at adjudicator's notes...

Premier_2

mutron wrote: »

...
Maybe I'm being stupid, but surely this is a key point in the misselling of any policy?...

Taken in isolation, you would be correct.

However, what does the rest of the letter say about why they have decided against your claim?

dunstonh

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.

Doesnt matter. That is quite acceptable and could actually support the other party. i.e. it shows that it wasnt completed so the person knew they didnt have to have it but when discussed and advised of the benefits, they agreed to have it.

No evidence saying that happened but no evidence to say it didnt. That is the problem with complaints with no evidence.

It is annoying that you would have to prove your statements and the firm not having to prove theirs.

Its not that they dont have to prove it. It's a bit similar to how the courts would act when you make an accusation. Anybody can claim anything was said. Documentation is king. Verbal is weak.

The seller could do everything right. However, that doesnt stop a consumer making a complaint and accusations that the seller did everything wrong.

When you make an accusation without any proof to support your complaint, the FOS have to look at what is available. That will include the processes in place by the seller where there is no documentary evidence. They will also look at the wording on the form. If it clearly marks it as optional, for example, then claiming you didnt know it was optional is going to require something stronger than unsupported claims.

BTW, I am not taking any sides here. I'm just showing how it will be viewed on the other side as well as how it could be viewed by the adjudicator.

It is annoying that you would have to prove your statements and the firm not having to prove theirs.

They do. In fact generally, companies have to go that stage further than consumers in providing proof. The process is ever so slightly consumer biased in that respect and certainly more so than a court of law. However, in many cases there will be areas where you just cannot prove anything (either way). Then a balance of probability decision needs to be made. Sometimes these will be wrong.

The four truths principle will apply. 1) what the person said happened. 2) what the company said happened 3) what actually happened and 4) how the information available is interpreted.

1 and 2 will not be the truth. 3 will be hard to prove in many cases and that leaves 4.

mutron_2

Premier wrote: »

Taken in isolation, you would be correct.

However, what does the rest of the letter say about why they have decided against your claim?

Well, there's no mention of our complaint against the policy being optional and the adjudicator's decision is based on this, so I feel it has to be revisited taking all the information into consideration.

mutron_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Doesnt matter. That is quite acceptable and could actually support the other party. i.e. it shows that it wasnt completed so the person knew they didnt have to have it but when discussed and advised of the benefits, they agreed to have it.

No evidence saying that happened but no evidence to say it didnt. That is the problem with complaints with no evidence.

Fair comment although the adjudicator's notes should actually reflect this especially if the decision is not favourable.

dunstonh wrote: »

Its not that they dont have to prove it. It's a bit similar to how the courts would act when you make an accusation. Anybody can claim anything was said. Documentation is king. Verbal is weak.

The seller could do everything right. However, that doesnt stop a consumer making a complaint and accusations that the seller did everything wrong.

When you make an accusation without any proof to support your complaint, the FOS have to look at what is available. That will include the processes in place by the seller where there is no documentary evidence. They will also look at the wording on the form. If it clearly marks it as optional, for example, then claiming you didnt know it was optional is going to require something stronger than unsupported claims.

BTW, I am not taking any sides here. I'm just showing how it will be viewed on the other side as well as how it could be viewed by the adjudicator.

Ok, I do understand although I can't help but feel some of our evidence has been overlooked.

mutron_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The four truths principle will apply. 1) what the person said happened. 2) what the company said happened 3) what actually happened and 4) how the information available is interpreted.

1 and 2 will not be the truth. 3 will be hard to prove in many cases and that leaves 4.

You are, of course, absolutely correct but, in regards to #4, when there is no references to our evidence that our circumstances would suggest we were missold, then we cannot be sure that the FOS made a fair ruling.

I guess, in an ideal scenario, the FOS are there to protect the consumer but, when it comes down to documented evidence, they appear to be less likely to rule in favour of the borrower.

We'll wait and see what the appeal returns...

shortchanged_2

mutron wrote: »

I guess, in an ideal scenario, the FOS are there to protect the consumer but, when it comes down to documented evidence, they appear to be less likely to rule in favour of the borrower.

This isn't strictly true because they are supposed to be impartial, therefore they don't take sides.

However personally I don't think they are fit for purpose and are a waste of time.

roonaldo

Regulation by the FSA was set up to protect the consumer not the FOS to protect consumers. FOS are an independant arbitration to settle complaints between the consumer and the bank/firm.

FOS are impartial, if you cannot take into documented evidence supplied by the bank what can you take into account?? Even a court would rule in favour if one side produced documented evidence and the other didnt.

If you take a complaint to FOS, you cannot really say 'I wasnt told of the terms and conditions' 'I wasnt told it was optional' 'I was pressured into it' and anything else thats cut and pasted from this website without backing it up with some proof. The bank will often come back with paperwork which is signed or proof of documents/letters that are issued to you which would suggest otherwise.

Fos are still upholding something like 85% of ppi complaints, im sure the majority who use the FOS free service do not think think they are not fit for purpose.

mutron_2

Ok, well I'll see how the appeal goes.