Egg PPI - a different story - advice please

dieselmilo

Hi Guys,

First time poster, looking for advice on a rather unique PPI problem...

I had a credit card with Egg from 2002, with Payment Protection Insurance.

I had attempted to make a claim in January 2003, following an accident. At the time, Egg were by far my biggest creditor. I contacted Egg and was advised that although I had been accepted on the scheme and had been paying the premium as an Employed person, that as I was subsequently self employed; I was no longer eligible for the PPI policy; and that my policy would be cancelled.

At the time I was furious in regards to having been initially accepted into the scheme, and making regular premium payments to Egg, but as I was under the impression that the policy had been cancelled, thought no more about it, but successfully completed claims with a number of other cards.

Following recent press coverage about the PPI misselling scandal, my memory was jogged and I contacted Egg in October 2011 with a view to a misselling claim on my Egg Card a as I thought that I had been missold it. following the advice I was given by them in 2003.

Egg rejected my claim on my Egg card and advised that it had been sold properly. I replied, advising that it was Egg themselves, in 2003 that advised me that I was not eligible for the policy and had advised me that as a result it had been cancelled, therefore surely by definition, I was missold the product, as according to the advisor I spoke to in 2003, I had a policy that I could never ever claim on.

They investigated and told me that in 2003, because there was no exclusion to self-employment in the product at that time; that I should indeed have been able to claim and had been given the wrong information.

Following a discussion with their underwriter, who administer the policy for them, I was advised to lodge a retrospective claim, which I did, after obtaining the relevant Doctors report.

The underwriter wrote to me apologising for the error on the 21st November 2011, and processed the claim, which nine years later, was accepted. As the account was closed, the underwriter sent a five figure sum in settlement to me.

After discussing this with the offices of the FSO, In January 2012 I registered a formal complaint with Egg, about the error made nine years ago. Egg rejected this claim, final response enclosed, on the basis that they say they have no physical evidence that Egg provided me with incorrect information in February 2003.

I then contacted St Andrews, who also rejected my complaint, on the basis that they also hold no evidence that they gave me incorrect information in February 2003.

St. Andrews also advised me that their letter of 21st November 2011, apologising for the error, is not an admission of liability. They further advised that they believe that liability lies with Egg, as Egg was the only organisation able to cancel the policy. For clarity, the policy was not cancelled and remained in force until the card was closed, several years later. I continued to pay premiums, as billed, as I assumed Egg had changed its mind on cancelling. Additionally my Egg card continued to accrue interest and late charges.

This negligent approach to my account caused me severe financial difficulties. What I am seeking now is for Egg, the underwriter, or them both jointly, to put me back in the position I would be in, had they processed my claim correctly in 2003, by paying statutory interest of 8% on the amount of the claim from the date of the claim, plus the refund, plus interest, of any and all subesquent late payment charges, interest charges and Payment Protection charges, which Egg has so far refused to refund, and which the FSO advised me was not unreasonable.

Neither organisation is able to verify that I contacted them in 2003 - I to be completely honest cannot say definitively which one it is, however I am 110% that I made the call, to the extent that I am more than prepared to provide a notorised affidavit of confirmation. Each is blaming the other which given that

- I had several other Payment Protection policies in place, all of whom I called on the same day, and indeed successfully claimed against all of them (I provided evidence of this to the underwriter with my original claim and complaint)

- I provided full medical evidence to the other Payment Protection Insuance companies with whom I made successful claims, and continued to do so for a further twelve months - again completing a sixth form would have not been an issue

- Egg was by far, my biggest creditor, so the idea of me not contacting them is disingenous as it is ridiculous.


- Egg was by far, my biggest creditor, so the idea of me not contacting them is disingenous as it is ridiculous.

leaves me in a Catch22 situation

My dilemma is what to do , whether to let the FSO try and sort it, or sue them myself....

Its also I guess a statutory tale for anyone who thinks they were mis-sold following a failed claim.

As ever, advise would be fantastic

Thanks in advance

M

waddy80

Hmmm, An interesting one!

Have you done a subject access request to Egg? (Request for all information held about you on thier systems) I did one recently and they sent me a list of contacts with them including phone calls. It might throw something up, proving egg wrong.

Sar Thread:https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1475553

dieselmilo

Thanks for the suggestion - yes did that they only go back to 2004 unfortunately so it literally is a case of my word against theirs - the thing that works in my favour seems to be the fact that I called the other five companies that I had policies with on the same day and within the same hour, so the probability of my not doing is pretty small, given the balance I had with Egg.
The other problem is there's confusion with the companies about what would have happened - depending on who you listen to Egg would have put me through to the underwriters, or given me a number, or completed the form for me....

dieselmilo

Received the policy details, which has confused the issue even more, as it would appear that at the time the claim was made, it was a different insurance company managing the policy