PPI refused - should I take this further?

majormax

I have recent received a reply from Santander who have taken over the Tricity Finance PPI claims. They admit that the insurance was taken out when the account was opened in 2002 but that they had no requirement to record the sales process and therefore have now way of knowing what took place when the insurance was taken. They go on to say that we would have been able to call at any time and had the insurance removed. As we didn't do this or didn't understand the policy, the cover remained and a claim could have been made at any time. They say they can't find any evidence of mis-selling and therefore are unable to refund. This is their final response and have closed the case.
Can I do anything further or not? Many thanks.

lippy1923

They say they can't find any evidence of mis-selling, but its you who needs to prove it to them.

What were your reasons for a mis-sale?

majormax

When the loan was taken out in 2002 I had only just returned to the UK and taken a "temping" position. I have since been advised that the loan shouldn't have been provided under those terms alone (as my position wasn't permanent) not sure if this is correct or not. I certainly wasn't advised that PPI was being added and would not have asked for it, as it was something that I didn't know existed (not having lived here for more than 20 years). I am since divorced and no longer have any paperwork only the loan number. Thank you for your response

-taff

You can send it to the FOS.

Brains64

majormax wrote: »

They admit that the insurance was taken out when the account was opened in 2002 but that they had no requirement to record the sales process and therefore have now way of knowing what took place when the insurance was taken.

Ohhh....how convenient....for THEM eh??:D, bet if it was a record that worked in their favor instead of against them they'd soon dig it out from "nowhere" then.

majormax wrote: »

They go on to say that we would have been able to call at any time and had the insurance removed.

Typical talk from an organization that is really just looking for any excuse they can to justify themselves, this is a false argument they are using here because they know very well there wasn't a very clear option to cancel that they made customers aware of, that was one of the biggest issues with PPI, it's not about "would have been able to" it's about being aware you can, you obviously were not aware at the time, that's the whole point, FOS time I say majormax:).

dunstonh

Ohhh....how convenient....for THEM eh??, bet if it was a record that worked in their favor instead of against them they'd soon dig it out from "nowhere" then.

UK law does place the onus on the complainant proving a wrongdoing. Financial services regulation does give a bit more protection than the law in that if the firm holds information that supports the complaint, they have to use it and cannot hide it.

[Deleted User]

Brains64 wrote: »

Ohhh....how convenient....for THEM eh??:D, bet if it was a record that worked in their favor instead of against them they'd soon dig it out from "nowhere" then.

In law, "He who asserts must prove".

Brains64 wrote: »

it's not about "would have been able to" it's about being aware you can, you obviously were not aware at the time, that's the whole point, FOS time I say majormax:).

It's all very well you encouraging every poster to refer to FOS, but don't you think it a little unfair to continue this encouragement rather than being a little more realistic in your assessment of the OP's chances?

McKneff

Brains64 wrote: »

Ohhh....how convenient....for THEM eh??:D, bet if it was a record that worked in their favor instead of against them they'd soon dig it out from "nowhere" then.




Typical talk from an organization that is really just looking for any excuse they can to justify themselves, this is a false argument they are using here because they know very well there wasn't a very clear option to cancel that they made customers aware of, that was one of the biggest issues with PPI, it's not about "would have been able to" it's about being aware you can, you obviously were not aware at the time, that's the whole point, FOS time I say majormax:).

Don't be silly..........

-taff

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

In law, "He who asserts must prove".
It's all very well you encouraging every poster to refer to FOS, but don't you think it a little unfair to continue this encouragement rather than being a little more realistic in your assessment of the OP's chances?

Their chances are not bad if they were a temporary worker with single premium

dunstonh

Temp worker is a stronger complaint reason.

Single premium is still good but not as good as it was a year or two back. Seems stronger on secrured loan/mortgages than personal loans)

Didnt know I had it is one of the weakest you can get.

Brains64

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

In law, "He who asserts must prove".
It's all very well you encouraging every poster to refer to FOS, but don't you think it a little unfair to continue this encouragement rather than being a little more realistic in your assessment of the OP's chances?

It's good to be realistic, I agree with that but at the same time there's no call for whopping great doses of doom and gloom "no chance"..."it's hopeless"..."forget it":rotfl:, there's nothing to lose by giving it a try with the FOS if the OP feels strongly enough that they have a case, the worst they can do is waste their time, I don't think anyones ever died from that:D.