Me2........MBNA CC PPI rejection

LoopeyLuLu

Hi
Received a rejection from MBNA as follows, and would like to ask some questions.

Their letter:

"Our records show that Payment Protection insurance was applied to your account at your request on 27 April 2004. I enclose a copy of your application form.

The application form you completed offered you an option to tick the box to purchase PPI. This option to tick the box would have made it clear to you that you could choose whether or not to make the purchase. Given that you ticked the box and signed below to confirm, I am satisfied that you actively chose to purchase PPI and understood that it was optional when you did so.

At the time the PPI was added to your account, you were eligible for the cover (you stated in your application form that you were a UK resident, in permanent employment and aged between 18 and 70). When you opted for PPI cover, we did not offer advice about the policy, we provided you with information only. In other words, yours was a non-advised sale. Having reviewed the information you have provided, our processes and the disclosures which we made to you at the time, we are satisfied that you had sufficient information to make your own evaluation of and decision about the product on offer. On this basis I regret to advise that I am unable to uphold your complaint or issue a refund of the premiums you paid.

.......This is our final response to your complaint...."

Questions:
1) The enclosed application form is just a printed sheet i.e. I still can't remember whether it was an on-line application or a postal one. Does this matter at this point (given they have rejected) - is there any benefit in requesting an SAR?

2) In my complaint form, I claimed mis-selling on the following grounds. Is it of any importance that they don't mention the 2nd and 3rd points in their rejection letter?

• Don't remember ticking any box
• In full-time employment and entitled to full sickness and accident benefits
• Pre-existing medical condition (Type1 Diabetes)

3) Does the fact that they mention 'final response' mean there is no point in asking them to reconsider i.e. is next step automatically FOS?

Thanks in advance for your help

gailee

Yip standard letter from them I have one too! Have gone to FOS filled in the form just a waiting game now

amersall

The diabetes could have excluded you from claiming also if you had any ailment that was due to the diabetes, take this to FOS as gailee said.

dunstonh

Although the pre-existing condition prevents claims that involve that condition, they do not prevent claims on other conditions unrelated to it.

Don't remember ticking any box

Form says you did and you paid it each month. If you didnt want it then why didnt you complain about it or raise it with them over the 8 years or nearly 100 statements that you were sent showing it? - credibility is lacking on this point as most people would query a payment they didnt authorise.

In full-time employment and entitled to full sickness and accident benefits

What is your definition of full sickness and accident benefits?

You have a number of weaknesses in your complaint. Plus it states that it was non-advised. So, it looks more like it was mis-bought rather than mis-sold. The FOS is your only choice now and they will look at the forms and the process and decide if it was sold or bought or if there is a technical failing that gives you a loophole.

src007

LoopeyLuLu wrote: »

Hi
Received a rejection from MBNA as follows, and would like to ask some questions.

Their letter:

"Our records show that Payment Protection insurance was applied to your account at your request on 27 April 2004. I enclose a copy of your application form.

The application form you completed offered you an option to tick the box to purchase PPI. This option to tick the box would have made it clear to you that you could choose whether or not to make the purchase. Given that you ticked the box and signed below to confirm, I am satisfied that you actively chose to purchase PPI and understood that it was optional when you did so.

At the time the PPI was added to your account, you were eligible for the cover (you stated in your application form that you were a UK resident, in permanent employment and aged between 18 and 70). When you opted for PPI cover, we did not offer advice about the policy, we provided you with information only. In other words, yours was a non-advised sale. Having reviewed the information you have provided, our processes and the disclosures which we made to you at the time, we are satisfied that you had sufficient information to make your own evaluation of and decision about the product on offer. On this basis I regret to advise that I am unable to uphold your complaint or issue a refund of the premiums you paid.

.......This is our final response to your complaint...."

I strongly suggest that you continue to the Financial Ombudsman Service. MBNA Credit Card PPI is as close as you can get to robbery without bringing out a shotgun.

I would suspect they were making 95% + profit on it. Whilst there is no certaintly that the FOS will uphold the vast majority of MBNA cases win at the FOS.

Their rejection is tactical and shameful. Your medical condition is a factor only if they didn't make the exclusions clear, but what will probably win your complaint is that their product was a scam!!

ppidisgrace

unfortunately as reported its not so simple to win an online ppi claim, now into the 12-24 month fos waiting queue

magpiecottage

Your difficulty is that it was not an advised sale and they have produced the application with the ticked box.

So the evidence points in their favour. The only likely reason for FOS overturning the decision is if the information provided was unclear or misleading.

LoopeyLuLu

Hi Everyone
Thank you all for your replies and suggestions - I will take this to the FOS now.

I guess what I was querying was:
a) the text of my rejection seems different to others i.e. mine did not specifically say it was an on-line application, or did not refer to the 'other screen opening' which gave details of the PPI conditions
b) the fact that they sent me a computer generated printout - should I read this as confirmation that it was an on-line application?
c) agree I was an idiot to not complain/cancel or query the payments, but is that a material factor in whether PPI was mis-sold?
d) at this point, I only have their opinion that it was non-advised - if it was an on-line application, does that automatically mean it is classed as non-advised? Or should I continue to press them to confirm how the application was made.
e) Full accident and sickness benefits meant my employer (who I am still employed by) pays full sickness and accident benefits for a year, and after that a medical disability pension kicks in if unable to work. Also payments are made in the event of redundancy - I can't say how much as it has never happened to me, but I work for a large multi-national who have traditionally paid substantially over statutory minimum for redundancy.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on this - particularly would like confirmation of:

if it was an on-line application, does thatautomatically mean it is classed as non-advised?

Many thanks

magpiecottage

LoopeyLuLu wrote: »

agree I was an idiot to not complain/cancel or query the payments, but is that a material factor in whether PPI was mis-sold?

Not in itself but it does make you look opportunistic.

It also gives them an opportunity, if they are on the ball (which they probably are not) to timebar your complaint.

at this point, I only have their opinion that it was non-advised - if it was an on-line application, does that automatically mean it is classed as non-advised?

To be advised somebody must have given you a specific recommendation to purchase. Nobody can do that online so it must be non-advised.

That in turn means for the complaint to be upheld the informaton provided to you must have been unclear, unfair or misleading.

Full accident and sickness benefits meant my employer (who I am still employed by) pays full sickness and accident benefits for a year, and after that a medical disability pension kicks in if unable to work. Also payments are made in the event of redundancy - I can't say how much as it has never happened to me, but I work for a large multi-national who have traditionally paid substantially over statutory minimum for redundancy.

You can never guarantee what redundancy payments will be made. However, complaints about sickness/redundancy being duplicated are reliant on the adviser not having taken proper account of them to succeed. If there was no adviser, there cannot be a failure by the adviser.

Would really appreciate your thoughts on this - particularly would like confirmation of.

Cityboydal

I have recently put in a claim to MBNA. Mine was an online application (march 06) and I remember it being a pain to continue unless I ticked the PPI boxes. Back when I reclaimed the CC charges my SAR from them included a print out of my online application. For the PPI section it shows 2 tick boxes, one being a confirmation that the first is my electronic signature. It also refers to the t&c's being accessible by a seperate link and not contained in the agreement shown.
Iirc, the boxes were pre-ticked, and that was why I had trouble proceeding unless I left them ticked.

Anyway, I will expect the same rejection letter but will certainly persue on the basis that I couldn't continue without opting in.

With yourself, presumably, if they have sent you a print out, yours would also have been online. If not then they should be sending a photocopy of your original application showing your signautre for it to be correct.
Good luck with your claim!

src007

ppidisgrace wrote: »

unfortunately as reported its not so simple to win an online ppi claim, now into the 12-24 month fos waiting queue

MBNA online claims aren't a problem (or single-premium online complaints) because, whilst 'non-advised' its the fact that clear information wasn't provided that will get the complaint upheld.

If used, the MBNA polcies would pay out just 3% of the card balance per month and MBNA would still add the insurance onto the balance during a claim further reducing the benefit. This is why MBNA have such a shocking lose rate at FOS.