Cap one reject ppi claim

walsalldave

cap one have rejected my claim due to the box being ticked on application form. when i sent off the questionaire i stated that the box had not been ticked by myself or had i filled in the form the only thing i wrote on the form was my signature. they have said this is there final decision what next guess tis there word agaist mine.

di3004

walsalldave wrote: »

cap one have rejected my claim due to the box being ticked on application form. when i sent off the questionaire i stated that the box had not been ticked by myself or had i filled in the form the only thing i wrote on the form was my signature. they have said this is there final decision what next guess tis there word agaist mine.

Hi there
So sorry to hear that, but I would write back and ask they reconsider with your reasons again, tell them you are not happy with a rejection on your complaint, as explained you did not tick but only signed the agreement, and you wish they take this into consideration with being a valued customer with a genuine complaint.
Ask that they respond either way by 14 days.

If you hear nothing or if they do not change the decision, make the complaint to the Financial ombudsman service (FOS).

Have they mentioned the FOS, as its the final response?

walsalldave

thanks for the help di3004 yes will send another letter only recently relised i was paying it not something i would have agreed to. yes they have mentioned the fos in the letter fingers crossed.

di3004

Your welcome, fingers crossed and please let us know how you get on, cheers.;)

jimmy46

walsalldave wrote: »

cap one have rejected my claim due to the box being ticked on application form. when i sent off the questionaire i stated that the box had not been ticked by myself or had i filled in the form the only thing i wrote on the form was my signature. they have said this is there final decision what next guess tis there word agaist mine.

Hi there, just thought id share with you that i have been trying to reclaim ppi from capital one, as i felt i hadnt selected the ppi box. but now they have sent me a copy of the agreement which show a tick in the ppi "yes" box!!!
funny enough the tick in this box looks completely different from all the other ticks that i did on the form!!
they sent me a what looks like a standard final responce letter with the copy application, which states if the box yes or no for ppi are left blank they do NOT tick the box on my behalf!!
i have completed a form from the FOS website and will send with copy of all letters sent and received to the FOS as although i really dont know why i would have left this blank, but i know for sure i didnt select ppi on this credit card. theres no way for me to prove this though!! dont think i will get anywhere with this but its worth a try
good luck with yours too.

src007

walsalldave wrote: »

cap one have rejected my claim due to the box being ticked on application form. when i sent off the questionaire i stated that the box had not been ticked by myself or had i filled in the form the only thing i wrote on the form was my signature. they have said this is there final decision what next guess tis there word agaist mine.

Its really just your word against theirs.

Capital One will argue that it wasn't their standard practice to commit fraud!! They will probably have staff training documents to back up the fact that their sales process was fair.

You are only relying on what you remember happened many years ago. Thats not really [FONT=&quot]reliable evidence.

Unless the 'tick' looks very odd or is in a different colour pen then I would strongly suspect the FOS would reject your complaint.

You have the right to continue to the FOS for an impartial review. However they have no magic wand to view what actually happened and if they see the PPI box ticked they will think that in all likelihood you ticked it.

[/FONT]

walsalldave

thanks all for for advice and stories none of the form is actually filled in by myself just remember signing the form. But still feel it was miss sold as it was not explained in the first place