Barclays say YES, Barclaycard say NO

eyeopener2

Hi

My OH recently filed two misselling complaints, one with barclays the other with Barclaycard.

Barclays are compensating for ALL the loans my OH has ever taken out, she only enquired about one. These are going back to the early 90's to present day as they say she should never have had the insurance due to her circumstances.

However barclaycard, for the same period in question 1996 to 2010 are saying that she DID need the insurance on the card and are refusing payout.

Anybody else have a similar situation with Barclaycard/Barclays? One says yes one says no.

She has sent the complaint off the the FOS now, but forgot to put in Barclays are paying out (DOH!) so she will have to send a suplemantary letter once we have a reference from the FOS ( I assume thats how it works).

E2

di3004

eyeopener2 wrote: »

Hi

My OH recently filed two misselling complaints, one with barclays the other with Barclaycard.

Barclays are compensating for ALL the loans my OH has ever taken out, she only enquired about one. These are going back to the early 90's to present day as they say she should never have had the insurance due to her circumstances.

However barclaycard, for the same period in question 1996 to 2010 are saying that she DID need the insurance on the card and are refusing payout.

Anybody else have a similar situation with Barclaycard/Barclays? One says yes one says no.

She has sent the complaint off the the FOS now, but forgot to put in Barclays are paying out (DOH!) so she will have to send a suplemantary letter once we have a reference from the FOS ( I assume thats how it works).

E2

Well done on the wins!:beer:

Going by many posts on here, it seems they are more difficult on Credit Card PPI than that of Loan PPI.
I would write back and give them 14 days, ask if they will reconsider because you stronly believe it was mis sold, and feel they have overlooked this complaint.
Sometimes they will still consider even on a final decision, but if you hear nothing by 14 days or if they do not change the decision, complain to the FOS.

Good luck.;)

dunstonh

It is harder for loan PPI to be rejected as a complaint as it typically falls foul of the single premium plus interest issue (even if you didnt complain for that reason). Credit card PPI is monthly premium. So, it avoids the single premium issue.

It doesnt matter if one complaint is upheld and the other rejected as you are talking two different products belonging to two different companies (even if they share logo) set up by two different people in two different periods. The odds of being able to use the same complaint reasons are pretty low (unless it is due to eligibility). The FOS wont care if the bank has paid out on one complaint as it has nothing to do with Barclaycard.

eyeopener2

dunstonh wrote: »

It is harder for loan PPI to be rejected as a complaint as it typically falls foul of the single premium plus interest issue (even if you didnt complain for that reason). Credit card PPI is monthly premium. So, it avoids the single premium issue.

It doesnt matter if one complaint is upheld and the other rejected as you are talking two different products belonging to two different companies (even if they share logo) set up by two different people in two different periods. The odds of being able to use the same complaint reasons are pretty low (unless it is due to eligibility). The FOS wont care if the bank has paid out on one complaint as it has nothing to do with Barclaycard.

Yep I take your point, and it makes sense, however let me put this to you and although I may be going over the same ground, bear with me.

If a customer did not need the insurance for a loan at a particular period in time surely they would not need insurance for a credit card at that same period in time. They supposedly cover the same issues (unemployment, sickness, redundancy) and although not identical they are very similar.

If company A (Barclays) owns company B (Barclaycard) then wouldn't they have to abide by the same criteria for eligibility?

Or am I missing something blindingly obvious here? (not unusual that)

Any thoughts or observations appreciated.

E2

dunstonh

If a customer did not need the insurance for a loan at a particular period in time surely they would not need insurance for a credit card at that same period in time.

You have to show you have no financial need. If you can do that then you have a strong case. If you cant do that then its harder.

If company A (Barclays) owns company B (Barclaycard) then wouldn't they have to abide by the same criteria for eligibility?

No. Banks are caving in with complaints that they should be rejecting. Some banks are upholding everything. The card provider trades a subsidiary company and has different rules and compliance. The card providers are not caving in as easily as the banks are.