capital 1 saying didn't have PPI?

snowfairy84

I have just spoken to capital one over the telephone and they advised me since i opened my account i have had no PPI insurance on the account?
could they be mis-leading me or do they have a legal obligation to tell the truth?
i have requested a copy of my credit card statements if i have been mis-sold PPI will the information be on the statements?

thanks

dunstonh

could they be mis-leading me or do they have a legal obligation to tell the truth?

I'm sure you don't really mean to ask that question. Companies cannot lie because it suits them. Any employee found telling lies faces disciplinary action and possible prosecution for fraud. Action can be taken against the company too. It doesnt mean errors are not made or you get the odd bad staff member. However, to ask if they have a legal obligation to tell the truth made me laugh.

Most people dont have PPI. The fact you dont know even though you get a statement every month where it would stand out like a sore thumb if you did have it suggests you don't. Couple that with them telling you that you dont and its probable that you dont.

snowfairy84

I don't agree with your comments at all. Are you telling me that companies don't advise or give out mis-leading information on a daily basis? isn't that the whole reason we are able to re-claim in the first place? the fact we are MIS-SOLD or MIS-LEAD in to having policies and insurances we know nothing about? if so few people have PPI insurance why is the total payment so high currently? do you think huge credit companies care about what their staff advise? an off-hand comment to me could potentially save the company a few thousand £ payout should i decided to claim and furthermore FYI the company i requested statements for never provided me with paper statements it was all online. i no longer have access to my account online as the account is settled so tell me o high and mighty how one should go about knowing this information with no statements in the first place!

Hanky_Panky

Are the posters on here getting dumber by the day ?

Hanky_Panky

You could try the freedom of information act
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3796903 :rotfl::rotfl:

dunstonh

Are you telling me that companies don't advise or give out mis-leading information on a daily basis? isn't that the whole reason we are able to re-claim in the first place?

There is a difference between misleading (either through poor training or a change in view by the regulator being applied retrospectively) than telling lies.

the fact we are MIS-SOLD or MIS-LEAD in to having policies and insurances we know nothing about?

It is impossible for you to not know you have PPI unless you chose to not read the documentation that was given to you. In the case of credit card it would also mean you didnt look at your statement each month. If that was the case, then I would be more concerned about your money management than the fact they sold you PPI.

In your case though it doesnt look like you have PPI as you havent seen it on your statements and they are telling you that you dont have it. So, how have you been misled or mis-sold?

if so few people have PPI insurance why is the total payment so high currently?

A lot of it is down to luck and opportunistic complaints and the auto-payout stance that many banks have because its cheaper to settle than it is to argue. Yes, there have been mis-sales and things done wrong and they deserve to be put right. However, that is not the same as what you were suggesting.

do you think huge credit companies care about what their staff advise?

Yes they do.

so tell me o high and mighty how one should go about knowing this information with no statements in the first place!

If were stupid enough to not look at the transactions on your statements then you are stupid enough to be misled. So, if you are happy to admit to that then fair enough.

You could try the freedom of information act
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/....php?t=3796903

LOL - has the Govt been nationalising without us knowing

AndyinLondon_2

dunstonh wrote: »

A lot of it is down to luck and opportunistic complaints

You forgot to mention fraudulent complaints. Today I saw a letter from a claims management company trying to reclaim PPI. There is a small problem with this in that the company the letter was addressed to has never, ever sold PPI. :mad:

dunstonh

AndyinLondon wrote: »

You forgot to mention fraudulent complaints. Today I saw a letter from a claims management company trying to reclaim PPI. There is a small problem with this in that the company the letter was addressed to has never, ever sold PPI. :mad:

Yes. A mortgage adviser i know (and only a young one who has not long been going) got one from a claims company that had a list of things that he had done wrong and the perfect recollection form the client on what he did or didnt say. Problem was that the adviser didn't arrange any insurances. It was a total fabrication. What made it worse for him was that despite being told there was no PPI, the claims company took it to the FOS and he got hit with a £500 charge. It was more than he made gross on the mortgage and yet he did nothing wrong (he is a network member so doesnt get any "free" complaints").

My compliance company has estimated that at least a third are try-it-on/fraudulent and one person on here said around half the complaints they are getting didnt even have PPI.

AndyinLondon_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. A mortgage adviser i know (and only a young one who has not long been going) got one from a claims company that had a list of things that he had done wrong and the perfect recollection form the client on what he did or didnt say. Problem was that the adviser didn't arrange any insurances. It was a total fabrication. What made it worse for him was that despite being told there was no PPI, the claims company took it to the FOS and he got hit with a £500 charge. It was more than he made gross on the mortgage and yet he did nothing wrong (he is a network member so doesnt get any "free" complaints").

This is where it is really unfair - The company I was talking about is a large organisation, so can easily afford a few £500 fees. However, a few of those could be enough to put a smaller sole trader out of business. Plus it increases the cost of his PII (hmm... that sounds a bit like PPI - maybe there's a reclaim opportunity!).

And ultimately it is the general public that ends up paying both via higher fees and because the people with genuine complaints have to wait six months before the FOS get around to dealing with them due to the backlog of time wasters they have got to get through. :mad:

magpiecottage

AndyinLondon wrote: »

This is where it is really unfair - The company I was talking about is a large organisation, so can easily afford a few £500 fees. However, a few of those could be enough to put a smaller sole trader out of business. Plus it increases the cost of his PII (hmm... that sounds a bit like PPI - maybe there's a reclaim opportunity!).

And ultimately it is the general public that ends up paying both via higher fees and because the people with genuine complaints have to wait six months before the FOS get around to dealing with them due to the backlog of time wasters they have got to get through.

Absolutely. The banks may have used incompetent employees but that is not a crime.

They may have sold products that were poor value for money but if that is illegal then you will need to close down all those kiosks selling tat on the seafront - and the National Lottery.

By contrast, actually lying in an attempt to gain an unwarranted redress payment is an offence under the Fraud Act 2006 and, for the reasons you state, is not a victimless crime.

If a product has been missold, I want to see proper redress paid. If a consumer attempts fraud I want to see them convicted of it.