Barclaycard PPI knockback

mag21

Hey,

I got a reply from Barclaycard re PPI today. They rejected my claim as they believe the PPI wasn't misold because the sales person explained PPI to me and that the PPI policy was explained in the documentation to open the account, also the PPI was added without my knowledge and does not constitute a valid reason to uphold a misold complaint.
Also, that I didn't have sufficient cover at the time of opening the account to cover repayments if I was made unemployed, had an accident or was sick.
To go further they say i have to go to the financial ombudsman. whats the best step, and are there any good template letters for this?
Thanks very much.

Mag

dunstonh

and are there any good template letters for this?

You dont need a template letter to go to the FOS. Indeed, you shouldnt really be using template letters if you can help it. They often result in a rejection that may not have occurred had your personalised your complaint. Even the FOS themselves say they prefer to hear it in your own words.

You havent actually mentioned what your reason for complaint was. It sounds like you used a bunch of reasons, some of which were not applicable (which can often damage a complaint as it hits your credibility) and had no evidence to support your complaint. So, what are your reasons for complaint?

mag21

Thanks for your input....
The reasons for complaining were....
1 Didnt ask for it or want it.
2 PPI was added without my knowledge
3 I was not asked whether i already had any existing insurance or employer benefits that would cover repayments.
Thanks again.
M

dunstonh

1 Didnt ask for it or want it.

So why didnt you say no when asked if you wanted it?

How long between you taking it out and then complaining about having it? If it as a few months, you have a good case. If its a few years, it gets harder. If its a decade or so then your complaint lacks credibility.

2 PPI was added without my knowledge

So, when you started seeing it on the statement, why did you not query it then?

3 I was not asked whether i already had any existing insurance or employer benefits that would cover repayments.

They are not financial advisers, they dont have to.

All the above suffer the same problem in there being a lack of evidence. So, they have to look at the credibility of your complaint. Hence, timescales between taking it out and complaining will be considered. They will also look for contradictions. In your first post you say they rejected as the sales person explained it to you. Yet you said it was added without your knowledge. So, you have a difference there.

Remember that having PPI is perfectly fine and acceptable. It was how they were set up and sold where the main issues are and single biggest reason people are refunded are single premium PPI which are charged interest on. That doesn't apply here. So, you are looking at one of the lesser reasons and you lack evidence to support your accusation.

Hence the credibility considerations that will come into play in a balance of probability decision.

mag21

I didn't realise It was PPI. I thought it was a monthly card charge like the annual charge on amex.
It was never mentioned to me when I opened the account thus I didn't ask for it or know it was going to be put on.
Unfortunately it was charged for a few years.
As for evidence, their evidence would be as flimsy as any evidence I could provide.
I guess its my word against theirs....
M

dunstonh

I guess its my word against theirs....

That is the problem with many complaints. Hence why the look to balance of probability.

The FOS are ever so slightly consumer biased. They wont just accept what the firm says at face value. Although they wont just accept what you say at face value either. Indeed, they may well phone you to interview you and ask your side of the story in your words (not uncommon where template letters are used - especially if the template letter includes all sorts of reasons that are not applicable or are one of the templates that are mass used and no evidence is available). However, they would be looking for Barclaycard to see what evidence they have and what processes were in place.

Ultimately, if nothing exists to support one side or the other, they look at the most credible party and decide from there.

roonaldo

mag21 wrote: »

3 I was not asked whether i already had any existing insurance or employer benefits that would cover repayments.

Only applicable to advised sales, credit card PPI are non-advised sales.