Problems with nationwide

Gavin2810

Hi

We have attempted to claim PPI on the basis that we were mis-sold in 1999 when we took out a loan. In 2003 we tried to claim under the policy on the basis that I was suffering from depression. However as I had previously had suffered from worked related stress in 1994 we were advised that we could not claim, as this was a historical condition and related as mental health.
However when we completed the original paperwork we were never advised on this or asked if we had previous illness.
Since contacting Nationwide stating we believed we have been mis-sold PPI, we have been requested by them to provide doctors letters regarding my medical history, which will cost money, advise of time off work relating back to 1999 and 2003 and employment history.
A lot of this information we do not have exact dates for and feel that rather that us proving that we are right to claim and have been mis-sold, Nationwide should be proving that we were sold correctly and that they followed procedures.
Can anyone advise what we should do next?

[Deleted User]

Gavin2810 wrote: »

A lot of this information we do not have exact dates for and feel that rather that us proving that we are right to claim and have been mis-sold, Nationwide should be proving that we were sold correctly and that they followed procedures.

In law he who asserts must prove. You are accusing them of mis-selling and so it is you who must provide evidence to show this.

dunstonh

A lot of this information we do not have exact dates for and feel that rather that us proving that we are right to claim and have been mis-sold, Nationwide should be proving that we were sold correctly and that they followed procedures.

The onus is on you to prove your allegation. They have every right to ask for evidence to support your allegations.

Gavin2810

dunstonh wrote: »

The onus is on you to prove your allegation. They have every right to ask for evidence to support your allegations.

should Nationwide not have to prove that we filled forms in relating to previous illness and that we were advised of this when we first took the loan out by the financial adviser.
Also they should have a record that we have attempted to make a claim?
If this was the case I would agree that we were not mis-sold and therefore had no case to claim.

[Deleted User]

Gavin2810 wrote: »

should Nationwide not have to prove that we filled forms in relating to previous illness and that we were advised of this when we first took the loan out by the financial adviser.

There was no "financial adviser", it will have been a member of staff at the Bank.

Gavin2810 wrote: »

Also they should have a record that we have attempted to make a claim?

This would be irrelevant to a mis-selling complaint regardless.

dunstonh

should Nationwide not have to prove that we filled forms in relating to previous illness and that we were advised of this when we first took the loan out by the financial adviser.

Are you sure it was a financial adviser? It would be extremely rare for a financial adviser to be involved with a loan. It wouldnt be cost effective. More likely it was a bank clerk. Whilst advised cases do have a higher level of information required than non-advised cases (which is in part why adviser cases are so low - just 0.2% of complaints at the FOS are adviser cases). That better audit trail does in most cases allow a complaint to be rejected (which again is why most adviser complaints fail).

Nationwide are not making the allegation. You are. You are saying they did something wrong. They have nothing on their files to show any wrong doing. So, they are asking you to supply the evidence to support your allegation. UK law puts the onus on the person making the allegation. The FSA complaints process is a bit more consumer friendly than that as the provider documentation has to be used and not just yours. However, they are saying they have nothing to support your allegations. Hence why you need to supply it.

it should be noted that they are also possibly looking at the severity of the condition. Pre-existing conditions do not mean the policy was void. Severe conditions can. So, your allegation is in part that the policy was useless due to health as you couldnt claim on it. They want to check it was useless.

magpiecottage

Gavin2810 wrote: »

should Nationwide not have to prove that we filled forms in relating to previous illness and that we were advised of this when we first took the loan out by the financial adviser.

No. Even if you did see a financial adviser, which, as DunstonH says, is unlikely, there is no requirement for that documentation to be retained after all this time.

Also they should have a record that we have attempted to make a claim?

Again no - there is no need to hold that data after all this time.

If this was the case I would agree that we were not mis-sold and therefore had no case to claim.

Your argument is flawed because it relies on a principle that anybody can make an allegation and it will be deemed to be true unless the person on the receiving end can disprove it. If that were so, Nationwide could simply argue that you owed it £1 million and, if you could not prove you didn't the Law would say you did.

That is the road to anarchy.

Gavin2810

Having never claimed anything before like this I was unaware of how things work. However it is nice to see some people try and help whilst others seem to want to ridicule and make smarmy comments. Unfortunately we are not all involved in the finance industry so are not fully aware of the rules and the processes. However I must say that I know of a number of people who have claimed they had been mis-sold PPI and not one had to go through this procedure. They appeared to complete a simple form stating they felt they were sold a product that was not appropriate for them and their claim has been processed. I therefore felt that the procedure Nationwide were following appeared to be an exception to the norm and not the normal procedure, hence my query
Again thanks to those who provide positive advice.

[Deleted User]

Gavin2810 wrote: »

I must say that I know of a number of people who have claimed they had been mis-sold PPI and not one had to go through this procedure.

The "procedure" is the same for everyone, but not everyone has the same complaint so it's always unwise to compare the experience of others.

It's always the case that the onus is on the complainant to provide proof if required.

If the Bank had found evidence to support your allegations during their internal investigation you would not now be asked to provide your own evidence.

dunstonh

However it is nice to see some people try and help whilst others seem to want to ridicule and make smarmy comments.

Not seeing it the same way as you I'm afraid.

Unfortunately we are not all involved in the finance industry so are not fully aware of the rules and the processes.

Which is why we are telling you the position.

However I must say that I know of a number of people who have claimed they had been mis-sold PPI and not one had to go through this procedure.

Did they have the same complaint reasons as you?

They appeared to complete a simple form stating they felt they were sold a product that was not appropriate for them and their claim has been processed.

Maybe they got lucky on auto payout (many complaints are not investigated and auto paid out). Maybe the evidence the firm had was enough to support their allegations. Maybe their reasons were different to yours.

I therefore felt that the procedure Nationwide were following appeared to be an exception to the norm and not the normal procedure, hence my query

It is quite common to be asked to support allegations. It is not an exception.