FOS not upholding PPI claim

guylondon

krisdorey wrote: »

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.

Can you differentiate between being mis-bought and mis-sold please?

I was advised by MNBA to take the PPI therefore there is a complaint and as it was prior to the FSA ruling against unfair pre-ticked ppi policies attached to credit card loans in July 2007. I wasn't aware of the ppi on the account until recent. I don't remember the process for applying however I was fully employed at the time and the policy wasn't beneficial to me. Surely I have a case?

I would appreciate help or support please.

DevCoder

How can you have been advised when it was applied for on the internet?
If you were advised take the ppi by MNBA then of course you were aware that there was ppi on the account. In your OP you stated you didn't agree to the policy, which is it?
You don't remember the process for applying but you insinuate that the tickbox was pre-ticked.
Being fully employed is not a reason for mis-selling.

So far, with what you have stated, you have no case, which is probably why the FOS has not upheld the complaint.

dunstonh

Can you differentiate between being mis-bought and mis-sold please?

sold is what happens when someone was involved in your buying it (other than yourself). i.e. bank clerk encouraged you to buy it. An adviser advised you to have it or a sales clerk said you should have it. Bought it when no-one else is involved and you chose to have it yourself.

I was advised by MNBA to take the PPI therefore there is a complaint

How did they advise you when there was no-one giving you advice?

I wasn't aware of the ppi on the account until recent.

So, you contradict earlier comment then that you were advised to take it out. As knowing you were advised to have it means you knew you had it.

. I don't remember the process for applying

A complaints handler would walk all over you with your contradictions. Now you say you dont remember the process but you say you were advised when there was no-one advising you and that the box was pre-ticked but you cant remember if it was pre-ticked. Which is it?

however I was fully employed at the time and the policy wasn't beneficial to me.

Excellent. That means you were eligible for cover as you need to be employed to have it.

We want to help and can spot the holes in your case easily. What do you think a complaints handler at a firm is going to see in what you are saying? You have failed because there is no wrong doing and you are totally unreliable and appear to misunderstand what the PPI issue is about.

guylondon

dunstonh wrote: »

sold is what happens when someone was involved in your buying it (other than yourself). i.e. bank clerk encouraged you to buy it. An adviser advised you to have it or a sales clerk said you should have it. Bought it when no-one else is involved and you chose to have it yourself.



How did they advise you when there was no-one giving you advice?



So, you contradict earlier comment then that you were advised to take it out. As knowing you were advised to have it means you knew you had it.



A complaints handler would walk all over you with your contradictions. Now you say you dont remember the process but you say you were advised when there was no-one advising you and that the box was pre-ticked but you cant remember if it was pre-ticked. Which is it?



Excellent. That means you were eligible for cover as you need to be employed to have it.

We want to help and can spot the holes in your case easily. What do you think a complaints handler at a firm is going to see in what you are saying? You have failed because there is no wrong doing and you are totally unreliable and appear to misunderstand what the PPI issue is about.

ok, I'm not stating my case clearly here.

I applied for the MBNA cc in Feb 2007. I don't recall the application process. However I have been informed by MBNA that I agreed to the ppi policy as I didn't choose to opt in or out of the ppi, this seems to be a standard letter as seen in other posts in these forums. I wasn't advised by anyone.

I never needed this policy and I can honestly say i didn't know I had this cover until recently, In fact I had closed the card last May and yet in the MBNA letter recently, the ppi was still active. I wasn't aware ppi had to be separately cancelled. This has now been cancelled.

The other 2 claims that have been upheld, were Egg and Halifax, both were applied for in the exact same way (online) with no person influencing the sale and in a similar time period of 2005-2008 and very similar monetary limits. I understand the auto-payout but my complaint should stand with mbna if ppi was applied in an unfair process which required me to agree to have the card.

I hope this clarifies better and only helpful advice from everyone would be appreciated thank you.

DevCoder

. I wasn't advised by anyone.

Game over.

roonaldo

Thanks but I hadn't forgotten or mis-brought the ppi as you put it.

you hadnt forgotten then, ok.

I was advised by MNBA to take the PPI therefore there is a complaint

so you remember being advised to take it

I can honestly say i didn't know I had this cover until recently

whoops.

[Deleted User]

guylondon wrote: »

I wasn't advised by anyone.

Therefore not mis-SOLD. You bought it.

guylondon wrote: »

I never needed this policy

Mis-bought.

guylondon wrote: »

I can honestly say i didn't know I had this cover until recently

The fact that you chose not to check approximately 72 statements is a reason for concern, not complaint!

guylondon wrote: »

I understand the auto-payout

So why are you still mentioning the other complaints as if they have any bearing on this one?

guylondon wrote: »

only helpful advice from everyone would be appreciated thank you.

The most helpful advice you can be given is to forget about this non-complaint which has already been rejected by both the Bank and the Ombudsman. Taking it further will just result in more disappointment.

krisdorey wrote: »

Game over.

If this guy continues to post, then I'm afraid he's a troll who just wants to get a rise out of us all.

guylondon

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Therefore not mis-SOLD. You bought it.


Mis-bought.

The fact that you chose not to check approximately 72 statements is a reason for concern, not complaint!


So why are you still mentioning the other complaints as if they have any bearing on this one?


The most helpful advice you can be given is to forget about this non-complaint which has already been rejected by both the Bank and the Ombudsman. Taking it further will just result in more disappointment.


If this guy continues to post, then I'm afraid he's a troll who just wants to get a rise out of us all.

I am really not here to get a "rise" from anyone. Apologies if this is how you feel.

I am simply looking for any suggestions on this situation which I have tried to explain (maybe not in the best clarity).

Clearly this is not a forum where everyone is willing to help. Thanks to anyone who has taken the time to give their helpful advice.

roonaldo

I feel if FOS have rejected your complaint, its probably time to drop it.

[Deleted User]

guylondon wrote: »

Clearly this is not a forum where everyone is willing to help.

This thread has had 35 responses!
Clearly you are not a poster who wants to be "helped".