Hi All (Some advice greatly appreciated) nationwide

Deano01959

Hi All,

Firstly please accept apoliogies if I've missed information on the forum. I have spent time looking around and am still stuck. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I put in a PPI claim with the OFT against nationwide a year ago.

Was for 9 sucsesive loans dating back 10 years with PPI andf 1 standalone.

Due to a relationship breakup and becoming a single parent to my 12 year old son 2 years ago (plus being a bit silly with credit) I got myself in debt and am now on a DMP. This was around 6 mths ago (not sure is relevant but wanted to give all information in case). I am also suffering from mental health (depression and anxiety) moderate.

Anyhow, through politely and gently asking plus providing evidence I got the OFT to finally look at my case as a prority (debt,health evidence submitted etc)

initial review a year ago looked like my claim had a high chance. Advised by OFT who had all paperwork from myself and nationwide. loan no's, signed agreements etc etc. I folllowed by the book im sure

I got a call yesterday basically saying the claim would not be upheld. I did not use a 3rd party and done the paperwork, claimed myself and explained as per guidlines here why I thought the Ppi was mis-sold.

There are no recorded calls, no hard evidence etc other than the credit agreement i signed and ticked the ppi box. On the phone the PPI wasn't explained, I thought I had to take etc and was not explained exactly what PPI was etc etc.

The lady from the OFT explained in her opinion that the paperwork sent out clearly showed PPI details and nationwide were and have been diligent in there processes. Bottom line is i stupidely didnt read and just went on what was said on the phone etc. I have been employed by the same company for 22 years, they had very good sickness benifits, pension and I had funds in the event I lost my job.

Obvioulsy I am gutted (to say the least) as the potential payout would of been high and allowed me to pay off my debts to nationwide and halifax etc.

My understanding was that the credit agreement didnt hold much weight when making a claim, esp when going back 10 years and thought my case no different to other nationwide unsecured perosonal loans and PPI miss selling.

She said in her opioion nationwide have been much better than most and covered themselves. Hence the complaint would not be upheld.

My thoughts were if nationwide have paid out PPI on personal loans through the OFT this should set a precident if my case is the same?

I have no idea on sucess rates with nationwide and have googled etc. Nor do I know if the law has changed. The lady said she will have to run her decision via a senior and I can appeal.

Any advice would be greatly apprecaited, if this is prob a right off I would rather know or if there may be a glimmer or hope if I do something different on appeal etc.

Stuck for ideas and trying to keep my chin up, 88% sucsess rate and I've fallen into the minority (no violins I assure:beer:) must push on!

I have asked for a copy of agreements I signed and they based thier decsion on. The lady will talk through her decison with me Tuesday. Is there "Anything" I can say or do to change her mind please or point out. They are the experts and I am out of idea's. I will look through all paperwork and just wish they had recorded calls as I know the pitch was poor and one to make me feel I had no choice but to take the PPI.

Good luck all the rest of you in the process;)

Kind Regards
Dean

Thanks all

Deano01959

This may be useful for others in a similiar boat. see consumer action group for more details. Dont give up!

writen by Lauren Thompson - who should be congratulated for this piece




[FONT="]Customers with grievances about their bank are being let down by a poorly trained and slapdash ombudsman, according to a whistleblower who used to work at the service. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Financial Ombudsman Service the independent body that settles disputes between banks and customers, lacks the expertise and resources to investigate complaints properly, the former employee alleges. Other critics, including independent financial advisers and lawyers, also accuse the ombudsman of bias in favour of the banks. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The FOS handles 170,000 cases every year and is the last hope for desperate consumers battling with the financial services industry. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Jane Sanders worked as an adjudicator at the FOS between 2006 and 2008, on £22,000 a year, and was “absolutely disgusted” at how the service is run. She says: “If adjudicators don’t meet their targets, they don’t get their bonus, so, of course, cases are going to be rushed through. My target was to close 3.5 cases every week. [/FONT]

Insider101

This doesn't sound right somehow. The usual process for a PPI complaint is that you complain to the lender first. If they reject then you can go to the FOS. The OFT would not be involved. They are not a dispute arbitration service though they do regulate unsecured lending. Are you sure you don't mean the Financial Ombudsman?

If it makes you feel any better, Nationwide have one of the lowest FOS uphold rates out there. I'm pretty sure it was under 20% of PPI cases last figures I saw. But on the whole Nationwide's sales process is accepted as compliant.

The problem you've got is the statement that you put on a complaint "for a chain of nine loans and a stand alone". If you had alleged a failing with the sales process on one occasion and been very specific about it then you may well have got the benefit of the doubt. But because your complaint is pretty vague and generic, plus as you said you complained about all ten loans, you're basically alleging that there were endemic flaws in their sales process rather than being a one-off failing. It's generally accepted that there weren't and hence probably why you've been declined.

If it is the FOS and your decision is from an adjudicator you can ask for it to be referred to an Ombudsman for final say. Their decision will be final.

The fact that they have paid out other complaints is meaningless. It sets no precedent, each case is individual with its own specific facts and circumstances.

Insider101

Deano01959 wrote: »

This may be useful for others in a similiar boat. see consumer action group for more details. Dont give up!

writen by Lauren Thompson - who should be congratulated for this piece




[FONT="]Customers with grievances about their bank are being let down by a poorly trained and slapdash ombudsman, according to a whistleblower who used to work at the service. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The Financial Ombudsman Service the independent body that settles disputes between banks and customers, lacks the expertise and resources to investigate complaints properly, the former employee alleges. Other critics, including independent financial advisers and lawyers, also accuse the ombudsman of bias in favour of the banks. [/FONT]
[FONT="]The FOS handles 170,000 cases every year and is the last hope for desperate consumers battling with the financial services industry. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Jane Sanders worked as an adjudicator at the FOS between 2006 and 2008, on £22,000 a year, and was “absolutely disgusted” at how the service is run. She says: “If adjudicators don’t meet their targets, they don’t get their bonus, so, of course, cases are going to be rushed through. My target was to close 3.5 cases every week. [/FONT]

FOS are poor it's true, but it is not generally the customer who misses out. It's generally accepted in the industry that FOS has a bias towards the consumer. This is especially the case with PPI where the uphold rate is about 80% and they have upheld many cases which would never stand up in a court.

dunstonh

The FOS is generally consumer biased. Not significantly but you are more likely to get a result from the FOS than any other method. The OFT has no involvement with PPI.

-taff

How did you complain and who to exactly? Did you use the ombudsman form, did you complain about single premium on a consolidated list of loans, why on earth are the OFT involved?

If I were you, I would start again explaining exactly what you have done, and who you actually complained to and how you complained.

Deano01959

Sorry, If I dont give good information I'm not going to get any good info back. Been a tough week

Ok I complained to nationwide, no go on PPI

Got all my loan numbers etc from nationwide, 10 in total. Turns out after a while 9 were sucsessive loans.

It wasnt the OFT, im going potty it was the FOS i contacted, provided details, filled in 10 forms. Sent back and after an initial review of my paperwork and nationwides (ie signed credit agreements) they said it is a claim they will review and looks positive "just on basis"

So I filled a claim.

I had good sick pay, family and friends, insurance policys. Employed at compnay for 10 years and after 22 still employed.

No calls have been recorded and I wish they had because I was mis sold this PPI via telephone calls. I did not read the small print on the credit agreement due to the very forward and unprofesional selling tactics on the phone. Why would I. I fully trusted the business and the person who I spoke too at nationwide. The PPI wasnt explained in detail, mis leading and only covers a portion.Was inferred it was compulsory.

No explanation of cooling off period. I had no health conditions, good credit. Was never explained what was covered at all. I had been employed at the same company for 10 plus years and am still with them now after 22. My redundacy package and sickness was very very good and can be provided for the times I took out these loans from my HR department.

quite simply nationwide

Didn't make it clear the policy was optional or tell me about any cooling off period.

Implied or insisted I take out their policy to qualify for the product or help with your application. Was very pushy when selling me the product, so you felt you could not say no. Would not let you continue with the application if you did not sign the insurance agreement as well.

The loan agreement's were made over the phone. I have done all due diligence throughout. Nationwide, its employee's have not. To me and many professionals in this area the decision and the simple legal guidelines were not followed by Nationwide via calls when applying for these top up loans.

As far as I am concerned the below simple guidelines were not followed

Didn't make it clear the policy was optional or tell you about any cooling off period.

Implied or insisted you take out their policy to qualify for the product or help with your application.

Was very pushy when selling the product, so you felt you could not say no.

Would not let you continue with the application if you did not sign the insurance agreement as well.

I can only go by what i recall, know.

"Shrugs" and sorry I'm no expert hence I'm here trying to get a lil help advice:(

Deano01959

Correct me if I'm wrong if nationwide can provide details, even in size 8 font "terms and conditions" they sent me highlighting the above, i.e cooling off period, what I was covered for and so fourth and I ticked the box then I havent a leg to stand on. No log of calls etc

it may be as clear cut as that for the FOS? BUT am i right in saying that this should of been provided? leaflet etc

all i recall and all the eveidence nationwide can provide is a single sided signiture and PPI tick box form?

If i'm completely of the mark legally and your unbiased, factual, please tell me.

I will appeal, ask for a senior/chief to review and contact my MP "If" you think I do or may have a case. 10 years back is a long time for both me and nationwide I understand that.

Its just there's some good strict guildlines that should have been adhered too and I honestly, hand on heart dont think they were. A sales guy on the end of phone really understanding what he should be informing and clarifying? hmm not from my experience and recolection.

Hit me! :huh:

-taff

You coul;d have complained about single premium on a consolidated chain of loans.
read through this
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

then search for single premium consolidated chain and you should fine some helpful phrases to complain to the FOS.

If the FOS have not upheld your complaint, you can ask for it to be forwarded to an actual ombudsman but realy, you should do a bit of research about the process rather than jumping on the MP bandwagon [which is not going to help you]

Insider101

Deano01959 wrote: »

It wasnt the OFT, im going potty it was the FOS i contacted, provided details, filled in 10 forms. Sent back and after an initial review of my paperwork and nationwides (ie signed credit agreements) they said it is a claim they will review and looks positive "just on basis"

Meaningless unfortunately, as you've found out. The FOS has a not particularly helpful call centre which is very good at telling people what they want to hear and not so good when it comes to having specialist knowledge. Like most call centres they are there to deal with simple questions and get rid of people as soon as a possible.

So I filled a claim.
I had good sick pay, family and friends, insurance policys. Employed at compnay for 10 years and after 22 still employed.

Most people do have family and friends, but I cant see how that's of relevance here. Nor is the length of service or the fact that happen to be still there. 10 years service means you would have got ten weeks wages as redundancy. Not bad sounding, but would have been gone fairly quickly in the scheme of things.

Sick pay and other insurance policies might be relevant if the policies were sold on an advised basis, i.e. were recommended as suitable for your circumstances. Of course, it rather depends how long your sick pay was and what the other insurance were, which you haven't said (car insurance, for exampler, if totally irrelevant, income protection insurance would be of relevance). If they were positively recommended and you had significant other cover, you might be best off focusing on this angle.

No calls have been recorded and I wish they had because I was mis sold this PPI via telephone calls. I did not read the small print on the credit agreement due to the very forward and unprofesional selling tactics on the phone. Why would I. I fully trusted the business and the person who I spoke too at nationwide. The PPI wasnt explained in detail, mis leading and only covers a portion.Was inferred it was compulsory.

No explanation of cooling off period. I had no health conditions, good credit. Was never explained what was covered at all. I had been employed at the same company for 10 plus years and am still with them now after 22. My redundacy package and sickness was very very good and can be provided for the times I took out these loans from my HR department.

I would very much doubt that you had a guaranteed redundancy package as a contractual entitlement. Did you? Many people think they would have got a generous redundancy payoff, but the truth is they're only required to pay you the greater of statutory sick pay or anything they have made a contractual agreement to.

Having no health conditions is a reason to have insurance, the fact you had none at the time didn't mean you wouldn't in the future. Credit history is irrelevant.

quite simply nationwide

Didn't make it clear the policy was optional or tell me about any cooling off period.

Implied or insisted I take out their policy to qualify for the product or help with your application. Was very pushy when selling me the product, so you felt you could not say no. Would not let you continue with the application if you did not sign the insurance agreement as well.

The loan agreement's were made over the phone. I have done all due diligence throughout. Nationwide, its employee's have not. To me and many professionals in this area the decision and the simple legal guidelines were not followed by Nationwide via calls when applying for these top up loans.

As far as I am concerned the below simple guidelines were not followed

Didn't make it clear the policy was optional or tell you about any cooling off period.

Implied or insisted you take out their policy to qualify for the product or help with your application.

Was very pushy when selling the product, so you felt you could not say no.

Would not let you continue with the application if you did not sign the insurance agreement as well.

I can only go by what i recall, know.

"Shrugs" and sorry I'm no expert hence I'm here trying to get a lil help advice:(

The problem here is that you sound like you're reading from one of those template letters which are published on forums like this. Was that how you wrote your complaint as well? Because it doesn't give the impression to a complaints handler of sincerity. When you see dozens of the same letter per week, it's hard not to think "another one jumping on the bandwagon...sigh".

The most successful complaints are ones which are clear, concise, credible and specific. It needs to spell out what you think was done wrong, by who, when and why you would not have purchased the product but for this wrongdoing. Never forget that despite all these adverts making it out to be free money, you are accusing someone of misconduct. If you are complaining about the sales of ten different loans then you are accusing ten different people of misconduct.

For example "my loan was taken in the (wherever) branch with a young lady with blonde hair who I believe was named Gemma. I cannot recall her surname. She put my application through and advised me it had been declined due to my credit score. She then advised me that she needed to go and speak to her manager, came back and advised me that they could override the system, but that I would be required to take out PPI. I protested as I have a long-term heart condition, but she assured me I would be covered for recurrences. When I received the policy summary I found out that I wouldn't However, when I called up I was advised that it was too late to cancel the cover".

The above is an example of a specific and credible account of events. By contrast if you've just written a template letter listing every account number you've ever had and a list of template complaint reasons then it's no wonder you've been turned down. You need to give a specific account of the alleged wrongdoing. For all ten of the sales you need to give as much info as possible. Who did you speak to? Name? Male or female? When did the call take place? What specifically did they say to make you feel the PPI was a pre-requisite What gave you that impression? Why would you take a policy if you didn't know what it covered? Why didn't you ask? If you can't give full and specific responses for the majority of sales then it's no wonder you've been turned down.

What you have to bear in mind is that these companies had sales processes in place designed to ensure that sales were conducted fairly. OK, so there were a fair number of occasions that they were not stuck to but Nationwide were better than most, as evidence by their minimal FOS uphold rate. If you're really accusing ten different people of ALL mis-selling the product to you at different times then you're alleging either that there were systematic failures with their process (it is generally accepted that there weren't) or that ten different people all chose not to follow the process. The latter stretches the bounds of anyone's belief.

If you had complained that one or two policies were mis-sold to you and given very specific details you may have got further. But to complain that every one you've ever taken out has been mis-sold to you (probably on one letter I am guessing) just comes across as lazy and opportunistic.

I don't mean to sound harsh, just trying to make you aware of the facts. But it really is easy to tell when someone has put a lot of effort into their complaint and genuinely believes they've been wronged. It's also easy to tell when they've just whacked a standard letter in on the off chance. And in most instances the case tends to be judged accordingly.

Insider101

Deano01959 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong if nationwide can provide details, even in size 8 font "terms and conditions" they sent me highlighting the above, i.e cooling off period, what I was covered for and so fourth and I ticked the box then I havent a leg to stand on. No log of calls etc

it may be as clear cut as that for the FOS? BUT am i right in saying that this should of been provided? leaflet etc

all i recall and all the eveidence nationwide can provide is a single sided signiture and PPI tick box form?

If i'm completely of the mark legally and your unbiased, factual, please tell me.

I will appeal, ask for a senior/chief to review and contact my MP "If" you think I do or may have a case. 10 years back is a long time for both me and nationwide I understand that.

Its just there's some good strict guildlines that should have been adhered too and I honestly, hand on heart dont think they were. A sales guy on the end of phone really understanding what he should be informing and clarifying? hmm not from my experience and recolection.

Hit me! :huh:

They will be able to provide you terms & conditions alright. These would have been either provided at the time or sent out in the post at a later date. The exact info requirements depend when you took the policy(s) out. Post January 2005, you should really have been provided with a brief oral explanation of the key features of the cover (not a chapter and verse lecture, a concise and brief summary). Before that it was more buyer beware, here's the terms & conditions, read them at your leisure. Nonetheless, knowing the FOS approach, you will only get anywhere with this if there was a specific term or exclusion in the policy which would have significantly affected you and made it unsuitable. Just saying "nobody explained it to me" won't get very far.

Look again at your comments in the previous post. Dispense with the ones that are of no relevance whatsoever ("I had good credit history"). The ones that may be of relevance, focus on them, quantify them and relate them to you complaint. You have said you had good sick pay. How long for? Half or full pay? Was it a contractual entitlement? You said you would have got good redundancy pay. How much? How do you know? Were you contractually entitled to it (seriously, I would be amazed if the answer was yes to this bit). You should be able to answer these questions straight off the bad. If not then it means you haven't done your research before jumping in at the deep end (another thing that sees many rejected).

If you can say "I was contractually entitled to 12 months sick pay, therefore do not feel the sickness cover would have been of benefit to me. The staff member I spoke to personally recommended the cover to me at the time and I feel he was negligent in recommending a policy where a good part of the cover would be of little benefit to me." This sounds good and might get you somewhere. Be prepared to provide the evidence if requested (i.e. a copy of your employment contract). Be aware that if the policy sale was advised post 2005 you would have been sent a statement of demands & needs explaining why. But again, it comes back to this issue that you are in effect accusing 10 different people of being negligent. It's difficult to believe because the odds are so heavily against it.