Letter from the bank has been doctored!!

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

The firm has a defined sales process. It will be assumed that the process was followed unless there is any evidence to the contrary.

Exactly.
FOS would make the same assumption.

jamesd

What'll be interesting is their response to your asking them why in the second letter they did not say that you had received the KFI and why they changed that answer, is it based on them examining their records and finding that the KFI hadn't been delivered to you, as you're claiming?

What the difference has done is introduce an element of doubt about the bank's position, while yours is consistent that you didn't receive it.

[Deleted User]

jamesd wrote: »

What the difference has done is introduce an element of doubt about the bank's position, while yours is consistent that you didn't receive it.

I can't see how this "element of doubt" will have any bearing on the Bank's position with regard to the complaint decision. As I've said, the OP has identified a simple clerical error-not some new compelling evidence that he was mis-sold PPI.

One might equally question the OP's position about receipt of communications from the bank; remember he first claimed not to have received the initial rejection and then subsequently found he had...

dynamic1

jamesd wrote: »

What'll be interesting is their response to your asking them why in the second letter they did not say that you had received the KFI and why they changed that answer, is it based on them examining their records and finding that the KFI hadn't been delivered to you, as you're claiming?

What the difference has done is introduce an element of doubt about the bank's position, while yours is consistent that you didn't receive it.

Simply put, they rejected it based on evidence they claimed they had, subsequently they send a letter that almost confirms that the their evidence didn't exist.

dynamic1

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I can't see how this "element of doubt" will have any bearing on the Bank's position with regard to the complaint decision. As I've said, the OP has identified a simple clerical error-not some new compelling evidence that he was mis-sold PPI.

One might equally question the OP's position about receipt of communications from the bank; remember he first claimed not to have received the initial rejection and then subsequently found he had...

I think most would agree that mis-placing something and later finding it isnt in the same class as altering an official bank document sent to a customer.
A clerical error IMO would be something like putting the letter in wrong envelope or filing a letter against wrong customer. Not changing a letter and saying its a copy, with the same persons auto sig still on it.

[Deleted User]

dynamic1 wrote: »

I think most would agree that mis-placing something and later finding it isnt in the same class as altering an official bank document sent to a customer.

Nevertheless, the "element of doubt" noted by the other poster is present in your behaviour too.

I think you are wasting your time with this...