FOS not upholding PPI claim

-taff

guylondon wrote: »

I had 2 other c.cards where applied online (with no Bank Staff present) they have both been upheld and had both mis-sold ppi in the very same way.

They cannot have been missold unless you were misselling to yourself You chose to have the PPI, no one stood there and made you choose to have it, therefore you miss-bought, rather than were missold.

magpiecottage

-taff wrote: »

They cannot have been missold unless you were misselling to yourself You chose to have the PPI, no one stood there and made you choose to have it, therefore you miss-bought, rather than were missold.

By that logic the OP should sue himself!

guylondon

-taff wrote: »

They cannot have been missold unless you were misselling to yourself You chose to have the PPI, no one stood there and made you choose to have it, therefore you miss-bought, rather than were missold.

Definition of sold (the past tense of sell): To give something in exchange for money.

Note, no force or person needs to be present in order to be sold something.

-taff

magpiecottage wrote: »

By that logic the OP should sue himself!

exactly

DevCoder

guylondon wrote: »

Definition of sold (the past tense of sell): To give something in exchange for money.

Note, no force or person needs to be present in order to be sold something.

And you got a PPI cover, thus you got something in return for money.

However you were not advised by anyone to do this so you cant complain about it being mis-sold, you can complain about it being mis-bought but then you'd end up suing yourself as other people have mentioned.

The whole PPI claim revolves around the person being advised to have the PPI, if there was no advice given then there is no complaint.

[Deleted User]

guylondon wrote: »

Does anyone have helpful suggestions on furthering this?

Looks like a repeat of the information I already provided at post#2 and post#4 is all you're ever going to get.

Since everyone is basically saying the same thing (apart from you), isn't it time to accept that you simply got lucky with the other two "complaints" and that this one is never going to yield anything?

Time to move on...

[Deleted User]

krisdorey wrote: »

The whole PPI claim revolves around the person being advised to have the PPI, if there was no advice given then there is no complaint.

Exactly, unfortunately the auto-payment of the other complaints has clouded the issue for the OP.

Angry_Cat

Would your credit card be with Egg by any chance ?

Egg changed their online application so that you could not complete it, without saying that you had read and agreed with everything.

If it is not with Egg and with another lender, the burden of proof is still to a degree upon you, as the person bringing the claim.

What you describe (which may or may not be accurate) is that you had to actively opt out of ppi and untick a preticked box. If this is the case, you should be able to establish this by looking on the net for other ppi complaints against the same lender.


The Ombudsman will make a decision based upon the balance of probabilities - being what it considers to be more likely than not to have happened.

As this is a credit card account and not a personal loan, you would have received a monthly statement which would have had a debit each month for PPI.

As you applied for this account in 2007 (6 years ago) you have had 72 reminders that you have a PPI policy. Therefore, you have had countless opportunities to cancel this policy.

[Deleted User]

Angry_Cat wrote: »

What you describe (which may or may not be accurate) is that you had to actively opt out of ppi and untick a preticked box.

FOS will have automatically checked whether this was the case as part of their adjudication. FOS say they cannot overturn the Bank's original decision.
You are replying as if the OP had yet to make his complaint, but he's already well past that stage.

Angry_Cat

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

FOS will have automatically checked whether this was the case as part of their adjudication. FOS say they cannot overturn the Bank's original decision.
You are replying as if the OP had yet to make his complaint, but he's already well past that stage.

The [text removed by MSE Forum Team] point I was trying to make was that in 2007 it would be more likely than not that you would have to actively opt in rather than in earlier years actively opt out.