EGG - Rejection What Now!!!

magpiecottage

thelovebader wrote: »

They have set a precedent by paying some people for the same reason as rejecting others.

No they haven't - they have looked at cases on their merits and the evidence for some has led to one conclusion and for others to a different one

This would apply if they changed their systems from an opt out to an opt in at some stage, for example.

thelovebader

I disagree. If the exact same circumstances have occured and they have refunded then the case should be treated the same. I agree that if something is different then the case reviewed accordingly. If I was rejected for an opt in button and some was refunded for an opt in button then that's not right!!!

magpiecottage

thelovebader wrote: »

I disagree. If the exact same circumstances have occured and they have refunded then the case should be treated the same. I agree that if something is different then the case reviewed accordingly. If I was rejected for an opt in button and some was refunded for an opt in button then that's not right!!!

If details were presented in a manner that was clear, fair and not misleading and you had to actively choose to take the cover then the correct decision would be to reject the complaint because the rules would have been complied with.

The fact that somebody else has had a different decision could be because there is something about their case that is different (and you will not know that as it will involve analysing personal data to which you are not a party).

It is also possible that somebody upheld another complaint without fully understanding the case. That is a mistake on the firm's part and fortunate for the complainant concerned but it does not set a precedent.

thelovebader

The_Marksman wrote: »

it is:

[EMAIL="bert.pijls@citi.com"]bert.pijls@citi.com[/EMAIL]

Bert has left. Sue Alexander his PA is forwarding messages sent to him.

thelovebader

magpiecottage wrote: »

If details were presented in a manner that was clear, fair and not misleading and you had to actively choose to take the cover then the correct decision would be to reject the complaint because the rules would have been complied with.

The fact that somebody else has had a different decision could be because there is something about their case that is different (and you will not know that as it will involve analysing personal data to which you are not a party).

It is also possible that somebody upheld another complaint without fully understanding the case. That is a mistake on the firm's part and fortunate for the complainant concerned but it does not set a precedent.

Thats what I said. If different then yes, treat each case on merit? If the same, then treat the same! I have seen personal data from someone else who got refunded and they got rejected originally for the exact same thing as me. The circumstances are the same.

The FOS agree. A precedent has been set and do not agree with your statement that someone else has been fortunate due to an oversight on the firms behalf!

Not here to argue with you, just presenting some facts here.