NatWest disagreeing with ombudsman - grrr!

emmared73

I am reclaiming PPI on behalf of my mum. Initially we wrote to the bank who sent the standard reject letter. Then we wrote to the ombudsman who said they believed NatWest had mis-sold on account of not explaining the insurance properly to her. Actually they never explained it at all and she assumed it was credit card fraud insurance.

Now NatWest is saying they disagree with the ombudsman even though they have no new evidence. They are just saying that the advisor would have explained it to her, as this was 'standard practice'. She was mis-sold in 1996 so I don't know how they can say this actually happened. My mum said she was just told to sign.

Is this a standard NatWest ploy?

Does anyone know what happens next?

I thought once the ombudsman found in our favour, NatWest would have to repay.

My mum feeling very despondent at the moment

Anyone had a similar experience?

emmared

[Deleted User]

emmared73 wrote: »

I thought once the ombudsman found in our favour, NatWest would have to repay.

No, if the bank feel you were not mis-sold they can appeal the initial decision, just as they have.
Your case now goes to an actual Ombudsman and you can expect the whole process to last around eighteen months with no guarantee of success.
Don't be despondent, though, the first decision has already gone your way...

misschicken

I've just had one go through this process. Mine made it through from the adjudicator decision (where you are now) to a final and binding decision from an Ombudsman in about 9 months. It was in a queue for most of that time and then with the Ombudsman for a couple of months. They'll keep you posted as to what stage it's at. Your adjudicator remains your point of contact if you have any questions.

dazza12

emmared73 wrote: »

They are just saying that the advisor would have explained it to her, as this was 'standard practice'.

The RBS/Natwest investigator has made an assumption that because this was 'standard practice', that the sales person would have followed this to the letter.

The reality is that every sale is different. FOS have recognised this. The fact that Natwest have presented this as their only defence is generally a good sign - this defence reason is a very weak one as it is based on an assumption. However as moneyineptitude has said, there are no guarantees of success.

dunstonh

I thought once the ombudsman found in our favour, NatWest would have to repay.

If an ombudsman rules, then it is binding on the firm. However, if an adjudicator rules, the firm has a right of appeal to an ombudsman.

The reality is that every sale is different. FOS have recognised this.

Although the FOS also accept that in the absence of evidence or anything that points to the contrary, that the sales process, if compliant, would have been followed.

In this case, Natwest have no evidence of any wrongdoing. However, the complaint reason is very weak as well as it is an unprovable allegation. These sort of complaints are a nightmare to rule (or guess what the ruling will be) but they will usually go with the most credible party. This often means looking at what was complained about and whether what other things said in the complaint are true and looking at the response and investigation to see if the information there is true.

We cant call it but based on what you have said, you can see why the bank has appealed the decision. However, we don't have access to the documents or whether the sales process by natwest is considered compliant or not.

emmared73

Thank you everyone for taking the time to reply. All your replies are very helpful and I will pass them into my mum. I can't help thinking how much resources are being spent on all this going round the houses!

Good luck to everyone else in the same situation.

emmared