Capital One PPI - stalling?

Rogers999

Have you recieved a final decision from the FOS as I am in the same situation , I got my complaint upheld in Sep 2012 but cap one objected and its gone to the ombudsman still awaiting a final decision !

spaniel_dog

I too have written to Capitol One after my partner noticed I was paying PPI on credit card, although at time took out was not working through ill health.
Reply from Cap One was to say on my application form I had put occupation as Retired with income of ... they have asked me for proof of employment at the time of application by obtaining letter from NI dept. I have sent them p60U issued at that time from benefits agency showing earnings as 0 benefits .... so dont know what they are up to unless delaying tactic.
If I had said was retired on application then that in itself should say I would not be eligible to make a claim as the retirement was health reasons
any advice on my next move

Del_Griffith

After two months Capital One initially got back to my wife saying that they had no record of her details (name change due to our marriage after she had her account) - this was despite the fact she had sent them two copies of the marriage certificate (which they lost) previous to this, and her also including information in her original submission of paperwork that informed of the name change.

Another ten weeks after reciept of the second claim, and they have rejected - however they have rejected on the basis of a woman who shares the same name but lives 500 miles away. We now have a rejection letter, and all persponal details/copies of agreement for a total stranger and my wife is still no nearer to any kind of closure with the company.

Not sure where to proceed with this.

TerryHenry

Hi, I wrote to Capital One June 2012 regarding a PPI claim with them. They rejected my claim twice so I decided to go to the FOS.

After sending over the relevant details the FOS got back to me in May saying that they reviewed my case and that they decided to uphold my claim etc etc

They then got back to me last week saying that Capital One have appealed and that they will now review their appeal and the case will go to the Ombudsman.

I'm hoping now that this doesn't get overturned after all this time but will keep you posted.

[Deleted User]

TerryHenry wrote: »

They then got back to me last week saying that Capital One have appealed and that they will now review their appeal and the case will go to the Ombudsman.

Don't expect this to happen overnight; it'll be months in the queue for an Ombudsman.

dunstonh

After sending over the relevant details the FOS got back to me in May saying that they reviewed my case and that they decided to uphold my claim etc etc

You may want to do the lottery at the weekend. The FOS only uphold 6% of Cap One PPI complaints.

They then got back to me last week saying that Capital One have appealed and that they will now review their appeal and the case will go to the Ombudsman.

I'm hoping now that this doesn't get overturned after all this time but will keep you posted.

Ahh, maybe defer that lottery ticket. Queue for ombudsman is a long one and Cap One have had success in overturning.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Queue for ombudsman is a long one and Cap One have had success in overturning.

One of the problems at FOS seems to be that its adjudicators are generally unqualified. Or at least they are new law graduates who cannot get jobs with real law firms (i.e. not the best).

This is particularly the case for PPI. If the adjudicator sees that the borrower was not eligible for PPI then the obvious conclusion is to uphold the complaint.

However, most Capital One cases were postal applications with no involvement from a salesperson. That leaves the way open for Capital One to argue that this could not have been a missale (because nobody sold it) and is therefore a mispurchase (fault of the purchaser).

If an Ombudsman accepts that argument (which they are likely to do if the information provided was clear, fair and not misleading) they are likely to reject the complaint.

Chumneywarner

Hi All,
The previous messages don't seem to give much hope in favour of a claim.
I applied for this card via the internet & stopped using it about 6 years ago.
I was aware that I was being charged insurance as soon as I got my 1st statement, but did not ask for it. There are usually a number of 'tick' boxes for these kind of applications, some you tick for yes, some for no. I do feel its all done as a bit of a tactic to get you to buy into things you may not necessarily want or need. On that score I feel its about time the 'government' made all of these form of applications a default no, so that you have to tick to accept. Bring everything in line using a common method, so to speak.
As for the small print, despite there being rules & regulations regarding this type of thing, does anyone really understand it totally? Are these terms & conditions parred down to a list of basic essentials that we really need to know about & not buried in red tape waffle? Not usually. So what happens? Most just ignore or scan through & of those who have the time to read thoroughly, do they really totally understand what they are reading? Doubtful.
Back to my claim. Having destroyed my information from C1 many years ago, I wrote to them using one of this websites letters, requesting information via the Data Protection Act back in early August 2013, giving the statutory 40 days to reply. Almost dead on the 40 days, I received a letter stating that my signature had changed & could I supply a copy of my passport or driving licence to prove who I was & my current signature. This I did & being a cautious type, deleted my driver number & any other unnecessary information. Approximately 3 weeks later, I received a letter asking for original bank statements or utility bills of less than two months old. As most of my bills are paperless (do your bit for the environment & all that), I only had my council tax & water rates statements in original form. Again, being cautious I sent copies, again deleting account numbers & other unnecessary information. I received a letter about 1 month later saying that my copies were not acceptable & that only originals were accepted (yes, yes, I know they asked for originals, but read on).
I understand that copy documents could be forged, but companies like this have full access to credit reference agencies & can fully track your credit & whereabouts going back at least 7 years, as well no doubt, as other methods of checking who you are (i.e. electoral register), so why do they insist on having my only original bills with all my information on them. To me, this is a serious possible security issue should they fall into the wrong hands or get lost on route & if I don't get them back & have need of originals in the future, I have to pay for replacements. This to me, seems like a way of finding out account information they may not already have access to, to record on their systems for future use. I have the right to withhold personal information if I chose, but these people are holding me to ransom, don't supply info, no claim. And as, I suppose, I have 'willingly' given up this info, they are no longer responsible for anything untoward happening resulting from its supply, should they deem that its use was beyond their control.
I still don't have my requested DPA information, so have now put in a PPI claim, but going by what you guys have said, I wont hold my breath.
On the positive side, at the same time I made a claim with Citi Card & they did the whole thing within 4 weeks & made me an offer, which I accepted. I'm still waiting for the cheque, which could take up to 8 weeks however! Capital One, take note, your claims procedure is seriously lacking in customer satisfaction!

-taff

Chumneywarner wrote: »

On that score I feel its about time the 'government' made all of these form of applications a default no, so that you have to tick to accept. Bring everything in line using a common method, so to speak.

The EU did in 2011.

dunstonh

I was aware that I was being charged insurance as soon as I got my 1st statement, but did not ask for it. There are usually a number of 'tick' boxes for these kind of applications, some you tick for yes, some for no. I do feel its all done as a bit of a tactic to get you to buy into things you may not necessarily want or need. On that score I feel its about time the 'government' made all of these form of applications a default no, so that you have to tick to accept. Bring everything in line using a common method, so to speak.

As said, that has been the case since 2011. Most providers acted before then. Although that complaint reason doesnt really apply to Cap One.

As for the small print, despite there being rules & regulations regarding this type of thing, does anyone really understand it totally? Are these terms & conditions parred down to a list of basic essentials that we really need to know about & not buried in red tape waffle? Not usually. So what happens? Most just ignore or scan through & of those who have the time to read thoroughly, do they really totally understand what they are reading? Doubtful.

Its a chicken and egg issue. If something isnt documented then it leaves the company open to complaint. If they then document these things it leaves them open to complaint that they document took much.

The choice to ignore T&C is with the individual.

Back to my claim. Having destroyed my information from C1 many years ago, I wrote to them using one of this websites letters, requesting information via the Data Protection Act back in early August 2013, giving the statutory 40 days to reply. Almost dead on the 40 days, I received a letter stating that my signature had changed & could I supply a copy of my passport or driving licence to prove who I was & my current signature. This I did & being a cautious type, deleted my driver number & any other unnecessary information.

Your redaction of documents would mean that they could not use the passport or driving licence as the ID check needs that information to be recorded.

As most of my bills are paperless (do your bit for the environment & all that), I only had my council tax & water rates statements in original form. Again, being cautious I sent copies, again deleting account numbers & other unnecessary information. I received a letter about 1 month later saying that my copies were not acceptable & that only originals were accepted (yes, yes, I know they asked for originals, but read on).

Their response is understandable and correct.

I understand that copy documents could be forged, but companies like this have full access to credit reference agencies & can fully track your credit & whereabouts going back at least 7 years, as well no doubt, as other methods of checking who you are (i.e. electoral register), so why do they insist on having my only original bills with all my information on them.

Maybe they dont use the electronic database. I do and each check costs money. Even then, a check can fail and some of the ID checks actually ask you to input passport number, driving licence number etc and it will validate them to say they are correct and valid. If you redact them then they cant do that.

This to me, seems like a way of finding out account information they may not already have access to, to record on their systems for future use.

No. That is paranoia. Plus, they dont have access to that information. They have a duty to not only check but prove they checked. What you supplied was inadequate and indeed, could well raise suspicion at their end and with ID checks being a risk based system, the more suspicious you are, the more you have to get to prove the ID. Inadvertently, you were creating more issues for yourself.

I have the right to withhold personal information if I chose, but these people are holding me to ransom, don't supply info, no claim.

That is not correct. They are required to verify the identity of the person in provision of a DSAR. A DSAR has no impact on the ability to make a complaint about the sale of a product. If you choose not to comply with the data protection act requirements then they dont have to comply with it either.

have now put in a PPI claim, but going by what you guys have said, I wont hold my breath.

That will largely depend on your complaint reasons. Cap One dont appear to auto payout like many others and have a very low overturn rate at the FOS which indicates they have a good complaints process. This is in part due to historical reasons with Cap One that saw them have to deal with an complainant process many years ago and automatically provide redress to those affected.

Yours is an online application (so you were not mis-sold) and it was after their previous compliance issue. So, you are right, your odds are very low.

Capital One, take note, your claims procedure is seriously lacking in customer satisfaction!

No its not. You hadn't actually made your complaint as you have said you have only just put it in now.