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

Eastlands70

Moose2003 wrote: »

Hello all,
I have just spent 40 minutes waiting for MBNA to answer the phone this evening in order find out what s happened to my PPI claim (credit card).
I finally managed to get an answer and told a rejection letter plus a copy of a signed agreement from 2001 had been sent on the 24th May. Well no sign of that!!
I asked the nice young man what I had actually signed and I made him read out the agreement to me over the phone..... I noted amongst other things that I was 'strongly advised' to take out the cover.
Surely this is mis selling?

I guess I will have no option but to go to FOS as I have had full NHS sick benefits etc for 25 +years....
Any advice would be really appreciated or I am interested to hear if anyone else has had a similer scenario
Many thanks


Finally MBNA have sent my letter of May 24th which I received today , confirming that they have not upheld my complaint plus have enclosed a copy of the agreement I signed in 2001.
The letter states it was a non advisory sale and they also forgot to enclose the copy of my signed agreement which is really annoying.
This rather conflicts with the statement read out to me on the phone by the young man from MBNA on Monday when I was chasing up the claim -'we strongly advise you' - and all the rest.
I must admit I then said .... you are recording this aren't you?

So on the one hand MBNA say it was a non advised sale and on the other they strongly advised me to take it out!:eek:

FOS guidline

“So whilst it is important that the customer has access to the full policy documentation, it is not enough for the firm to say it met its obligations simply by sending the customer the policy document and highlighting the customer’s right to cancel the policy

In my younger, more naive years - going back to the mid-1990's - I took out PPI on nearly all my credit cards because I fell for the blurb on the application forms. I recall most or all of them "strongly advising" me to take it out and like you I see this as a form of mis-selling. It was only after a few years that I stopped taking out PPI because I woke up and realised it was a complete rip-off. Many policies only pay out the minimum payment each month and with
the extortionate interest rates on many cards this would make very little impact on bringing the overall balance down. Plus credit card
debt is unsecured debt and if I were to lose my job or fall ill what's the worst they could do if I didn't have PPI and was unable to make my monthly payments? Regardless of whether people were mis-sold it or not, what can't be doubted is that it's the biggest con trick the banks have ever pulled on their customers and I really wish I'd woken up to it sooner because it's cost me literally thousands of pounds and not once did I ever have to make a claim on the various credit card PPI policies I had.

I'm in the process of going after MBNA and RBS for whacking front-loaded PPI on various loans I had with them - unlike the credit cards I don't recall any discussion as to the ins and outs of taking out PPI and the cost implication of it. Worse still, I wasn't offered any of these loans without the insurance so I feel I've got a very good case providing I can obtain all the paperwork relating to these loans of course. With regards to the credit cards, I'm not sure what to do as I feel any claims I make on those would not be upheld as I willingly took it out and knew it was optional. However, as you have already got an ongoing claim I reckon you should continue to pursue it and go down the "strongly advised" path as one of the reasons for the mis-sell. Good luck!

dunstonh

I recall most or all of them "strongly advising" me to take it out and like you I see this as a form of mis-selling.

Except is it not. It actually verifies it is not as they are advising you to have it but not telling you to have it. So, it is clearly optional.

Eastlands70

dunstonh wrote: »

Except is it not. It actually verifies it is not as they are advising you to have it but not telling you to have it. So, it is clearly optional.

Just to clarify, I know it's not deemed as mis-selling but in my opinion it should be considered as a mis-sell where any company didn't just "advise" people to take it out but "strongly advised" people to do so. Such wording is underhanded as it puts added pressure on people to take the policy out. Not only that, there was no example listed of how much a person might typically see their credit card balance reduced by if they had to make a claim. These policies often only paid out the minimum payment each month. Say if this was 3% and the outstanding balance was £5000, the customer may wrongly assume that their balance would reduce by £150 per month but once the monthly interest was added plus the monthly PPI premium - which in itself would be nearly £40 on a 5k balance - they'd be lucky to see it reduced by £50 never mind £150 which amounts to nothing short of a complete and utter con trick. In short, it was probably the worst value for money product the banks have ever sold.

Moose2003

Eastlands70 wrote: »

Just to clarify, I know it's not deemed as mis-selling but in my opinion it should be considered as a mis-sell where any company didn't just "advise" people to take it out but "strongly advised" people to do so. Such wording is underhanded as it puts added pressure on people to take the policy out. Not only that, there was no example listed of how much a person might typically see their credit card balance reduced by if they had to make a claim. These policies often only paid out the minimum payment each month. Say if this was 3% and the outstanding balance was £5000, the customer may wrongly assume that their balance would reduce by £150 per month but once the monthly interest was added plus the monthly PPI premium - which in itself would be nearly £40 on a 5k balance - they'd be lucky to see it reduced by £50 never mind £150 which amounts to nothing short of a complete and utter con trick. In short, it was probably the worst value for money product the banks have ever sold.

I was also very naive back in the day and not at all money savvy. The wording 'strongly advise' would have made me feel anxious and in the old days I would have perceived the banks to be the financial 'experts', I would have assumed I had to have cover even if I had NHS benefits!!!

I will see if the FOS help at all and keep you posted.
Good luck everyone with your claims

dunstonh

Just to clarify, I know it's not deemed as mis-selling but in my opinion it should be considered as a mis-sell where any company didn't just "advise" people to take it out but "strongly advised" people to do so. Such wording is underhanded as it puts added pressure on people to take the policy out.

Personally, if I had my way, I would not let any financial company use the word advise or the adviser tag for any role unless the person is actually an adviser (individually regulated and authorised) and they are giving advice. However, that isnt going to happen. I just wanted to let you know that whilst I think you wont get much success on that front (although you never know the outcome as we dont have the benefit of documentation or other issues that may arise and are only focusing on the one here. A lot of complaints that are valid get rejected and a lot of fraudulent complaints which should be turned down get paid out), I do agree that wording should ideally be factual and advice left to the advisers (for reference the FOS published stats show that advised PPI only accounts for 0.2% of complaints at the FOS)

gailee

well a update on FOS MBNA received letter today nearly a year ago its took! MBNA are offering a offer but not admitting they were in the wrong BUT a least I've got a offer .. So please keep trying people stick with it :j