Capital One PPI - Help please

MR_G

I have just had a response from Capital One.

Basically they are saying that my mother purchased the optional PPI product in a phone call to Capital One when they made contact with her to sell her one of their credit cards.
I know for a fact that she did not purchase the PPI & it was just added to her payments.

She was in her mid 50's at the time had over 30 years’ service in the NHS so was covered if she was made redundant plus was & is still part of a NHS scheme that will cover her pay for 12 months should she fall ill.

Capital one are saying that the PPI was sold appropriately & that this is their final response.

So it basically seems that it is there word against hers.

I have documentary proof of the schemes she was / is part of, so I can prove that there was no need for it.

What is my next step?

Should I write to the ombudsman with my proof or give Capital One another go ?

dunstonh

Basically they are saying that my mother purchased the optional PPI product in a phone call to Capital One when they made contact with her to sell her one of their credit cards.
I know for a fact that she did not purchase the PPI & it was just added to her payments.

One of the reasons why Cap One has such a low success rate on PPI complaints is that most are either bought directly (via the application) or via the telephone post sale.

The problem is that your opinion is not supported by evidence. Also, if it was just added without her permission then why did she never query it?

So it basically seems that it is there word against hers.

As so many complaints are. IN those cases, without any other failing, they usually do not succeed.

I have documentary proof of the schemes she was / is part of, so I can prove that there was no need for it.

Doesnt matter. It was not sold under an advice process.

Should I write to the ombudsman with my proof or give Capital One another go ?

.
The FOS only overturn 22% of Cap One complaints (was 11% this time last year, now running at 22%). So, the odds are not good. Do, you have any evidence to support your allegations?

MR_G

Thanks for your prompt response.

She genuinely thought it was a term of having the card so never queried it.

It’s only when I had a word with her about PPI etc. that she realised she could challenge it.

Surely that fact that this is something she has never needed & we can prove this must work in her favour??

Not sure what you mean by under an advice process?

The only evidence I have relates to her continued length of service, and paper work that confirms she did not need PPI as she was covered for Sickness & Redundancy.

ALIBOBSY

I am in a simular situation to your mum and the initial adjudicator at the FOS agreed with me that I didn't need the PPI and it was little or no use to me. However CO have refused to settle and are pushing it to be seen by an actual ombudsman.

So I reckon its worth a punt with the FOS, but be prepared for it to take ages and it could go either way.

Good Luck

Ali x

PS would go straight to the FOS as Capital one are highly unlikely to revise their decision. TBH I can see why as only a relatively low number get upheld. Mind you they get charged each time one goes to the FOS either way, I wonder how many who are turned down in the initial stages don't bother with the FOS?

dunstonh

Surely that fact that this is something she has never needed & we can prove this must work in her favour??

On an advised case it would. However, Cap One are non-advised. The other issue on this front is that if the PPI would pay out in addition to employer benefits then that is fine. If it wouldnt pay out in addition then that is a good complaint reason. Just because there is employer benefits, doesnt mean its mis-sold. Whether it would pay out or not is the main issue.

Your only choice really is to go the FOS but statistically it is likely to fail. However, your mum may be in the minority that win.

Pumplet

Hi

I have recently had my Cap One PPI complaint upheld by the FOS. I had a letter back at beginning of December to confirm this and that Cap One have till the 28 December to reply, to say if they agree or not and to provide more evidence if not.

I have not heard anything since from either Cap One or FOS. I called FOS three weeks ago and they have not chased this and Cap One have not replied.

They said that Cap One is in a major backlog - so whats the point in setting deadlines if they dont actually stick to them??

Hopefully will hear something soon - guess its just a waiting game at the mo!

dunstonh

so whats the point in setting deadlines if they dont actually stick to them??

What deadlines?

Pumplet

FOS gave Capital One a deadline of 28 December 2012 to reply whether they agreed with them or not to uphold the claim.

So whats the point in setting a deadline if Cap One dont have to reply by the deadline and if FOS are not going to chase this up?

magpiecottage

MR_G wrote: »

She genuinely thought it was a term of having the card so never queried it.

An error on her part is not grounds to uphold a complaint - unless that error was the result of a failing by Capital One. So you would need to show that it was caused by something Capital One said that was unclear, unfair or misleading.

Surely that fact that this is something she has never needed & we can prove this must work in her favour??

By that logic every insurance you do not happen to claim on could be deemed missold.

Not sure what you mean by under an advice process?

If somebody working for Capital One actually recommended the cover that means it was an advised sale and that Capital One is responsible for making sure it was suitable. Otherwise they only had to provide information that was clear, fair and not misleading.

The only evidence I have relates to her continued length of service, and paper work that confirms she did not need PPI as she was covered for Sickness & Redundancy.

I am not at all sure that it does confirm what you think it does.

NHS staff receive six months' full pay then six months' half pay if sick. So for the second half of that period she could be struggling. In addition, there is no CONTRACTUAL right to redundancy pay from the NHS. Any redundancy payment would be discretionary - and if it was paid, the policy would pay out in addition.

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

I am in a simular situation to your mum and the initial adjudicator at the FOS agreed with me that I didn't need the PPI and it was little or no use to me. However CO have refused to settle and are pushing it to be seen by an actual ombudsman.

Unfortunately there is a high turnover of adjudicators at FOS and some are not particularly good. Capital One may therefore think the adjudicator on your case has failed to take account of this.

Mind you they get charged each time one goes to the FOS either way, I wonder how many who are turned down in the initial stages don't bother with the FOS?

Surely you are not advocating using the FOS fee as form of blackmail Alibobsy?

ALIBOBSY

magpiecottage wrote: »

Unfortunately there is a high turnover of adjudicators at FOS and some are not particularly good. Capital One may therefore think the adjudicator on your case has failed to take account of this.


Surely you are not advocating using the FOS fee as form of blackmail Alibobsy?

Well the adjudicator went into anlot of details and dicussions with my self and it certainly wasn't a swift decision. His final decision was 4 pages long and addressed all the points I had raised as well as the points they had raised, so it seemed pretty in depth, but I can understand once they have gone this far, CO were always going to push it all the way.

Re your suggestion about blackmail you must either have read my post to quickly or are looking for something in my post that isn't there.
If I was suggesting what you say, surely I would have said to write to CO and "threaten" them with the fee, not say send it to FOS straight away.

What I was saying is given that CO are charged for each complaint I am suprised they don't settle any cases early (surely for some it would be more cost effective to do this) and was wondering if this is because a low percentage of those they turn down at the "first hurdle" so to speak go to the FOS-I would be interested to know the numbers on this, but have never seen the figures.

TBH do you really think I would believe anyone could "threaten" such a big company with the FOS fee :rotfl:-I think not.

I have read and reread what I wrote and cannot see how you came to that bizzarre conclusion, but I am well aware how easy it is to miss interpret forum postings so no harm done .

Ali x