Packaged Bank Account - RBS Royalties Gold

sunshine111

Hello,

I recently wrote to RBS regarding being mis-sold my Royalties Gold Account, they have written back to say as the Royalties Gold was added over 6 years ago they can't trace back records any further??? and to write to FOS if I am not satisfied with their response - has anybody else had this letter, do I challenge them further or go straight to FOS?

Thanks in advance?

dunstonh

There is no point challenging them as they have given their response. If you dont like that response then go to the FOS and supply the FOS evidence to support your allegations of wrongdoing as the bank have nothing to support it.

Wywth

sunshine111 wrote: »

Hello,

I recently wrote to RBS regarding being mis-sold my Royalties Gold Account, they have written back to say as the Royalties Gold was added over 6 years ago they can't trace back records any further??? and to write to FOS if I am not satisfied with their response - has anybody else had this letter, do I challenge them further or go straight to FOS?

Thanks in advance?

What evidence do you have of the alleged mis-selling?
Have you provided this to the bank?
If not, I suggest you do. Going to the FOS in such circumstances will only delay matters further, as they will only send such evidence onto the bank ... but that could take months.

sunshine111

Thank you for your responses, I have checked again on their letter and it confirms:-

Having considered all the information, I am sorry I am unable to agree with your complaint about the upgrading of account ********, to a Royalties Gold Account, as the event in question took place more than six years ago.

The evidence re mis-selling, was that we were told at the time that it was free to upgrade to Royalties Gold as we were valued clients and we would be able to take advantage of free travel insurance etc..

Wywth

sunshine111 wrote: »

...
The evidence re mis-selling, was that we were told at the time that it was free to upgrade to Royalties Gold as we were valued clients and we would be able to take advantage of free travel insurance etc..

If you were told it was free over 6 years ago, why are you only now questioning the fees???
Why didn't you question them the first time they were applied???
And the question remains, what evidence do you have to support this claim that you were told they were to be no charges ???

Were you in a position at the time of sale to potentially take advantage of the travel insurance included?
If not, why did you accept that as a reason for switching accounts???

leclerc

sunshine111 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses, I have checked again on their letter and it confirms:-

Having considered all the information, I am sorry I am unable to agree with your complaint about the upgrading of account ********, to a Royalties Gold Account, as the event in question took place more than six years ago.

The evidence re mis-selling, was that we were told at the time that it was free to upgrade to Royalties Gold as we were valued clients and we would be able to take advantage of free travel insurance etc..

Did you make any benefit from the account? For example, no doubt they had travel insurance so did you go abroad and pay for separate insurance?

In terms of the benefits at the time the account was taken out, how many of them did you use or were even aware of?

I think the difficulty of reclaiming packaged account fees is sometimes having to prove that you were missold it or more to the point not explained the benefits of the account meaning that you paid out for things like travel insurance when you were already covered. Furthermore, not querying the fees for quite some time can then prove difficult to state it was missold when you have not queried it before.

Have you downgraded the Royalties Gold account now?

roonaldo

sunshine111 wrote: »

do I challenge them further or go straight to FOS?

and FOS are going to just say they are correct to destroy historic records, so how on earth are they going to side with you? plus the fact that you need to show it was mis-sold.

leclerc

roonaldo wrote: »

and FOS are going to just say they are correct to destroy historic records, so how on earth are they going to side with you? plus the fact that you need to show it was mis-sold.

By showing that they paid for things that were covered by that account then it would certainly show that the bank did not properly explain the account. However, I do tend to agree with the issue of historical problems except in the event of certain banks who would have stated that their loan rate was on provision of the packaged account ie a lower rate and so therefore the threat of a higher rate would have prevented them from downgrading(and Yes I have heard someone tell a customer that info which was totally inaccurate).

Wywth

leclerc wrote: »

By showing that they paid for things that were covered by that account then it would certainly show that the bank did not properly explain the account....

Not necessarily.

It could more likely be that some over zealous travel agent mis-sold the poster some additional travel insurance when they already had a suitable policy in place from the bank

(although I agree if the poster went out to specifically purchase travel insurance in it's own right, your argument would hold some water)

Remember also, even if the poster never actually needed such travel insurance, it doesn't necessarily mean it was mis-sold.

The key here is whether you could have used the policy. If you were eligible but simply never had a need to use it, that's not mis-selling - unless you never realised you actually had the account.

I can't think of anyone that wouldn't be eligible for travel insurance, save for possibly where it only covers overseas travel and the customer was forbidden to leave the country by having their passport confiscated, or perhaps on medical advice.

But again, it does cover where the customer was not explained the package actually included such travel insurance ... but I don't think that is applicable here - the OP has already said the reason for taking the packaged account was it was sold to them on the basis it included travel insurance.

leclerc

Wywth wrote: »

Not necessarily.

It could more likely be that some over zealous travel agent mis-sold the poster some additional travel insurance when they already had a suitable policy in place from the bank

(although I agree if the poster went out to specifically purchase travel insurance in it's own right, your argument would hold some water)

Remember also, even if the poster never actually needed such travel insurance, it doesn't necessarily mean it was mis-sold.

I can't think of anyone that wouldn't be eligible for travel insurance, save for possibly where it only covers overseas travel and the customer was forbidden to leave the country by having their passport confiscated, or perhaps on medical advice.

But again, it does cover where the customer was not explained the package actually included such travel insurance ... but I don't think that is applicable here - the OP has already said the reason for taking the packaged account was it was sold to them on the basis it included travel insurance.

I kinda agree with you in terms of the fact that if an over zealous travel agent sold them an insurance product then it is difficult to reclaim them. I would merely add though, the fact that they accepted it might imply that they were not properly explained the product. I have known packaged accounts to be sold on one specific product which in totality did not give a saving to the customer and they subsequently took out other products which were effectively double covering them. Each individual case will be different however....