MBNA - fined by FSA re. PPI?

tea_lover

Morning,

I have done various searches but can't seem to find quite the right information so am hoping someone can help me.

My OH has had a PPI refund claim against MBNA (virgin) rejected. We're now in the process of referring this to the ombudsman.

TBH, I'm not sure we'll get anywhere as he completed the application on line and does appear to have ticked the relevant box. He's employed, there's no health conditions and he didn't speak to anyone at virgin at the time.

It seems like our last resort may be if Virgin/MBNA have been fined by the FSA already. Does anyone know if this is the case?

TIA.

dunstonh

It seems like our last resort may be if Virgin/MBNA have been fined by the FSA already. Does anyone know if this is the case?

Whether they have or have not has no impact on your complaint.

TBH, I'm not sure we'll get anywhere as he completed the application on line and does appear to have ticked the relevant box. He's employed, there's no health conditions and he didn't speak to anyone at virgin at the time.

So, bottom line is that it was not mis-sold and you can see why they rejected it.

downy2008

As per my own experience, even though your OH has ticked the box, that in itself is not sufficient reason to reject the complaint. My own complaint was rejected by MBNA, I complained to the FOS, and MBNA have informed the FOS that they are going to uphold my complaint. I assume that your rejection letter was the same as mine - you have provided no evidence of other means to pay your credit card etc..I provided this information to the FOS, and I can only assume that they then forwarded it on to MBNA. Either that, or once MBNA are contacted by FOS, they automatically uphold the complaint. Either way, you have nothing to lose.

Downy

tea_lover

dunstonh wrote: »

Whether they have or have not has no impact on your complaint.

All of the (many) guides we have read on the subject state that this is a major reason for refunds. A previous fine for the same thing is a clear sign that the company were not behaving as well as they should in this area.

Ticking the box doesn't mean it wasn't missold at all, just that it's harder to prove. My OH (along with lots of others!) wasn't aware that the PPI was optional, it was just shown as something you had to tick as part of the process.

But thanks!

tea_lover

Thanks Downy, that's good news that your complaint has been upheld.

magpiecottage

tea_lover wrote: »

A previous fine for the same thing is a clear sign that the company were not behaving as well as they should in this area.

No - the fine was for the way they handled the complaints in general, not for particular cases.

It is rather like the fact that somebody has been prosecuted for careless driving does necessarily mean that it was their fault and not yours if you were both involved on an accident on a different occasion.

Ticking the box doesn't mean it wasn't missold at all, just that it's harder to prove.

Because it is less likely

My OH (along with lots of others!) wasn't aware that the PPI was optional, it was just shown as something you had to tick as part of the process.

Which could be because the form was misleading - which is a missale.

Or it could be that the applicant was too stupid to read it - which is a mispurchase and the applicant's fault.

dunstonh

All of the (many) guides we have read on the subject state that this is a major reason for refunds. A previous fine for the same thing is a clear sign that the company were not behaving as well as they should in this area.

Internet myth.

If the FSA fines a company then usually, a set of instructions go along with that. Such as the need for them to contact the customer to offer redress (as Halifax had on mortgages recently) or for them to treat the complaint using a defined method set by the FSA (as AXA have had in the past). If it was a fine because of an individual or limited number of cases or unrelated issues and your complaint didnt involve that then it is irrelevant. The firm knows whether it has been fined or not. it doesnt take you to tell them.

Ticking the box doesn't mean it wasn't missold at all, just that it's harder to prove. My OH (along with lots of others!) wasn't aware that the PPI was optional, it was just shown as something you had to tick as part of the process.

Seems more likely it was mis-bought than mis-sold. There has been a lot of success on pre-selected tick boxes or where double negatives were used. However, to tick to say you want it within no involvement of a rep of the company is not a mis-sale.

tea_lover

All of the MSE information clearly states that previous fines against the company are a good sign that you have a claim. So if this in an internet myth, it seems to be one that MSE firmly believe.

dunstonh

tea_lover wrote: »

All of the MSE information clearly states that previous fines against the company are a good sign that you have a claim. So if this in an internet myth, it seems to be one that MSE firmly believe.

You are misreading the intention. If a company has been fined in respect of an area you are complaining about then it increases your chances of complaint being successful. If it is unrelated then it doesnt make the slightest bit of difference.

You do not need to tell a company it has been fined. They will know that for themselves.

MSE says a few things in some areas which are wrong or very weak or too simplistic or more often than not, people read the article and take the wrong meaning from it.