MBNA does not agree with FOS assessment

Billy333

Hello,

I need some advice as MBNA have told the FOS that they do not agree with the FOS assessment on the following grounds:

"...we say this based on the fact that the customer has stated that they would only receive statutory sick pay. We feel that the customer would be unable to meet all of their outgoings including the credit card repayments should they be out of work for a prolonged period of time due to an accident or sickness. In addition the customer has stated that they had savings/relatives to rely on. We do not feel that this would have been sufficient to meet all of their outgoings. We also do not feel that it is appropriate, nor would we expect, for the customer to rely on friends or family to met their credit card repayments, particularly as this would not be the only outgoings that the customer would need to meet.

Therefore MBNA believes that the customer would have derived some benefit from the policy and we request that the decision is either reviewed or placed in a queue for an Ombudsman review."

I would like to reply to the FOS but need to know how best to word a suitable response, based on the following:

Without an assessment of friends/family credit status at that time, how would MBNA know what credit would have been available to myself to meet my outgoings?

Why should friends/family not be able to help meet outgoings if requested - i.e. how would MBNA know if friends/family would or would not be able to cover outgoings?

I have successfully claimed PPI from another couple of credit card providers and they have not disputed any part of the claim which was exactly the same as the one made to MBNA. If other companies accept that PPI was mis-sold based on the same criteria, have they not set a precedence that should also apply to MBNA?

MBNA have also taken 4 months longer than they FOS gave them to respond - does that not could for anything?

Any advice/help etc. that I could use in my reply to the FOS would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,

Billy.

dunstonh

The response from MBNA does indicate that a financial need for the policy existed.

The FOS should not be considered friends or family members to meet obligations. If the adjudicator has accepted these as reason for not having it then I can see why MBNA are taking it to an ombudsman. It is a really daft thing for an adjudicator to accept.

Without an assessment of friends/family credit status at that time, how would MBNA know what credit would have been available to myself to meet my outgoings?

Absolutely irrelevant. They dont have to interview everyone of your friends to see if they have the financial capacity and willingness to take on legal responsibility for your finances.

Why should friends/family not be able to help meet outgoings if requested - i.e. how would MBNA know if friends/family would or would not be able to cover outgoings?

Because that does not happen in real life.

I have successfully claimed PPI from another couple of credit card providers and they have not disputed any part of the claim which was exactly the same as the one made to MBNA. If other companies accept that PPI was mis-sold based on the same criteria, have they not set a precedence that should also apply to MBNA?

There is no precedence. The other companies may have had other failures and not those you complained about. A good many companies auto payout on PPI complaints without even investigating them. They all have different procedures and methods, staff members, forms and different types of policies. It would be totally daft to try and link them. Harold Shipman was a murderer. Using your argument then it would make all doctors murderers. Or even all men. Or even all human beings.

MBNA have also taken 4 months longer than they FOS gave them to respond - does that not could for anything?

None whatsover.

Any advice/help etc. that I could use in my reply to the FOS would be greatly appreciated.

Do you actually have a proper complaint reason with any decent evidence to back it up or is this the friends/family bit the only thing you have? Its damned flimsy and you can see why MBNA are getting it referred to an ombudsman. Personally, I can see an ombudsman overruling the adjudicator on this one. If they dont then it effectively makes the sale of any financial product pointless. i.e. my pension was mis-sold as I dont need to plan for retirement as my friends would pay for me. My house insurance was missold as my friends would have paid for the new house if it burned down.