BOS response - Section 78 does not apply

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Actually, Dunston's original assessment was quite correct. The MSE advice does make it seem like asking for the terms and conditions are a necessary part of the complaint process. However, the reality is that this is a suggestion to save on the £10 it costs to do a full SAR and causes a lot of upset and confusion when lenders write back with a refusal to comply for closed accounts.
The OP needs no T&Cs (and won't be getting them anyhow) what he needs are valid reasons to complain that he was mis-sold. It's just unfortunate that Dunston has become so used to answering similar questions again and again he came across as uncaring and unhelpful.

I understand that he won't be able to get them from BOS. I also understand that may not be a mandatory part of the complaint process and that MSE advice in this respect may be misleading.

His advice was

If you have grounds for complaint then make the complaint. You dont need the agreement. That is just wasting time and money.

My point though is that the policy detail itself can actually assist with a claim in terms of itself presenting a valid reason for a complaint. So it is not necessarily accurate to completely dismiss the OPs attempts to get hold of it.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

My point though is that the policy detail itself can actually assist with a claim in terms of itself presenting a valid reason for a complaint. So it is not necessarily accurate to completely dismiss the OPs attempts to get hold of it.

No, the T&Cs are suggested by the MSE advice article to enable someone who doesn't know the account numbers of loans and PPI policies to make a complaint using valid reasons.
How can the T&Cs be themselves a cause for complaint?

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No, the T&Cs are suggested by the MSE advice article to enable someone who doesn't know the account numbers of loans and PPI policies to make a complaint using valid reasons.
How can the T&Cs be themselves a cause for complaint?

Succesfull mis-selling complaints have been made against banks selling PPI policies which contain specific T&Cs and exclusions which made them unsuitable for people in certain circumstances - the self employed, people working on fixed contracts and other clauses - where a consumers circumstances haven't been properly assesed at the time it was sold to them. If PPI was sold to you and the policy cover itself was unsuitable for your circumstances at the time that can form the basis for a valid complaint.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

Succesfull mis-selling complaints have been made against banks selling PPI policies which contain specific T&Cs and exclusions which made them unsuitable for people in certain circumstances - the self employed, people working on fixed contracts and other clauses -

All valid reasons which are covered comprehensively in the MSE article, advice which the OP said he was following.
(Though he obviously missed the part which states that T&Cs aren't available for closed accounts)

MoneyMagic01273

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

All valid reasons which are covered comprehensively in the MSE article, advice which the OP said he was following.
(Though he obviously missed the part which states that T&Cs aren't available for closed accounts)

No argument there.

And don't get me wrong... I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent. I know as much as anyone about the OPs [potential]reasons, valid or not.

[Deleted User]

MoneyMagic01273 wrote: »

I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent. I know as much as anyone about the OPs [potential]reasons, valid or not.

The point is that Dunston's only "fault" was to jump to the conclusion that the OP was a "chancer" and reply in a manner that was a bit sharp and accusatory. He didn't give any false information.