Barclaycard box ticked on form

jammother

Just a note to say that if you have been turned down by Barclaycard because you positively chose the product as you ticked the box on the form - then don't give up hope.

In May 2011, I submitted my PPI mis-selling claim to Barclays and requested an SAR. I did not receive the SAR (still waiting) and Barclays kept telling me there was no PPI on the account and then investigating the wrong account. I got so fed up with them that I referred the case to the FOS in November 2011. In September 2012, Barclaycard rejected my complaint because I had positively selected the product in a written application form. This was not true.

I have spent the last 22 months chasing up the FOS. Barclaycard would not send over the business file. This was the same file that would contain my hand written application form. My case reached the front of FOS queue a week ago.

The adjudicator phoned me this morning to say she had made contact with Barclays and they would be sending the file over. Five hours later the adjudicator contacted me saying Barclays had decided to make an offer of the full premiums plus interest.

So, if you think you have a case, then keep going. It has taken 29 months for me but I've got there in the end.

-taff

jammother wrote: »

Just a note to say that if you have been turned down by Barclaycard because you positively chose the product as you ticked the box on the form - then don't give up hope.
....


In September 2012, Barclaycard rejected my complaint because I had positively selected the product in a written application form. This was not true.

Either you selected it or you didn't. You're giving conflicting information.

jammother

Barclays said 'You have been rejected as you positively chose the product as your application was sent by post' - those were Barclaycard's words not mine - I should have put the words in quote marks to make it clearer.

I didn't select the product hence them overturning their decision.

dunstonh

I didn't select the product hence them overturning their decision.

Given the quick turnaround I suspect the complaint hasnt been upheld. The adjudicator would give them a small window to settle the complaint with you without incurring the FOS fee. Barclays would then decide if its cheaper to settle or fight the case and run the risk of losing. In this case, it looks like they have chosen to settle it. It could be that they feel the odds of success are low or that a different set of eyes has found a flaw that the first didnt or the amount of redress is below their floor limit to auto payout on FOS complaints.

It is one of the flaws of the current system that consumers can blackmail firms into paying out even when there is no wrongdoing. However, some firms (mostly banks) dont help by having such high overturn rates which encourages FOS referral.

[Deleted User]

jammother wrote: »

The adjudicator phoned me this morning to say she had made contact with Barclays and they would be sending the file over. Five hours later the adjudicator contacted me saying Barclays had decided to make an offer of the full premiums plus interest.

Five hours is not long enough to have fully considered your case again. This will be a "goodwill" payout probably simply to avoid the FOS fee.

Your reasons for complaint have not resulted in it being upheld, it's your perseverance and patience in referring it to FOS that have done that. A postal application cannot be mis-sold, it means you actively chose to have the insurance and so mis-bought. It's very doubtful the Bank even have the original hand written application.

Brains64

From what jammother is saying and please correct me if I'm wrong jam but this sounds to me like it might have been a case of someone in the bank ticking the consent to PPI box in the form on behalf of a customer at the time and then trying to claim later that it was the customer themselves that ticked it and agreed, this is not uncommon, in fact, at the time before all this PPI mis selling scandal came to light it would have been one of those acceptable naughty practices amongst sales staff within banks to increase their sales figures, perfomance, bank profits etc, of course, proving it is difficult but with some thorough investigation it might be possible to establish, because it's not initially easy to prove though and because most people can't be bothered to argue or ask to check forms that they've already submitted, this is why it was probably thought to be okay, I mean, how do you distinguish one persons basic tick in a box from another??, it's not like a signature and besides, unless a customer had specifically said 'no I don't want this product' (which most wouldn't have because most didn't know what it was or cared at the time) then the thinking at the time would have been to let sales people get away with this practice, so...uh...this might also be the reason why Barclay conceded rather than avoiding the fee, well, just a thought anyway:).

[Deleted User]

Brains64 wrote: »

in fact, at the time before all this PPI mis selling scandal came to light it would have been one of those acceptable naughty practices amongst sales staff within banks

There was widespread mis-selling certainly, but what you allege is fraudulent activity-a much more serious accusation for which you can provide no proof.

Breaking the law is not an "acceptable naughty practice", nor was it ever.

The fact that no one has been successfully prosecuted for this suggests that it wasn't a widespread practice at all.

Still, I suppose it makes for a few more lines of anti-bank sentiment.

dunstonh

From what jammother is saying and please correct me if I'm wrong jam but this sounds to me like it might have been a case of someone in the bank ticking the consent to PPI box in the form on behalf of a customer at the time and then trying to claim later that it was the customer themselves that ticked it and agreed

That is a very serious allegation and whilst it may have happened on a small nubmer of occasions where sales reps were involved, there is little logic to why it would appear on postal applications where no sales rep is involved.

in fact, at the time before all this PPI mis selling scandal came to light it would have been one of those acceptable naughty practices amongst sales staff within banks to increase their sales figures, perfomance, bank profits etc,

Except this was a postal application. Not branch based. Plus, I used to work in a bank branch and there was never any remuneration or bonus for credit card sales let alone if it had PPI on it. The branch had soft targets for a certain number of cards. PPI never formed part of it.

The vast majority of branch staff are honest and would not commit fraud. The problem was they were poorly trained from around mid 90s onwards and given targets, which often resulted in no personal financial gain. There is probably more fraud going on now with PPI complaints then there was with actual sales.

If you think about it logically, if someone says they dont want it and the staff member alters it to say they do, most would pick up the fact it is present when it is first charged and then raise it. Some may slip through but most would not. So, that staff member would be taking enormous risk by making fraudulent amendments to applications.

so...uh...this might also be the reason why Barclay conceded rather than avoiding the fee,

Your opinion doesnt stack up for a postal application.

Cockney_Wideboy

It is one of the flaws of the current system that consumers can blackmail firms into paying out even when there is no wrongdoing. However, some firms (mostly banks) dont help by having such high overturn rates which encourages FOS referral.[/QUOTE]


That is a very sweeping statement would imply that the average consumner is aware of the system to the extent that they are actively playing the it and using the FOS/Bank relationship to their advantage - which I am sure you will agree, just is not true. The consumer may be benefitting from the flaw - but I suggest that there are very few indeed that are THAT aware of it. Furthermore, I suggest that banks are not in the habit of openly dishing out refunds - otherwise they would not spend the amount they have (and are), tactically - and sometimes pointlessly - rejecting perfectly meritous claims.

And when I say 'perfectly meritous' I mean claims that although you and others on here might not agree with the merits of said claims, the FOS does.

I have little or no sympathy for the banks on this one. If they acted completely fair and consistently when dealing with the consumer regarding PPI, the above 'flaw' you speak of would not exist - which is what you also allude to of course. Al they have to do is play fair with the consumer - but thats too much to ask for isnt it. They say that the volume of claims is preventing the process from being carried out in a more timely manner etc etc....then they (as you say) willingly give out refunds in double quick time to those that might not have a case. Altogether not right and will only prompt more and more claims. The FOS have a role to play in this regard too. Offering concessions to banks can only be to the detriment of the philosophy of the PPI reclaim process.

Hobson's choice might be more of an accurate description than basic blackmail I think anyway.

Cockney_Wideboy

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

A postal application cannot be mis-sold, it means you actively chose to have the insurance and so mis-bought. It's very doubtful the Bank even have the original hand written application.

I do not entirely agree with that. I have just been refunded by MBNA for my PPI that was selected by postal application. While I agree that in most cases this was indeed optionally selected, it was selected based upon the information provided with the option - and if that information was presented in a manner that allowed the consumer to make the choice that best fitted their requirements and circumstances. In the case of myself, while MBNA rejected my claim, using the 'ticked box' defence, the FOS disagreed and came to the conclusion that if I were made completely aware of the limitations of the policy and its suitability to my circimstances (existing medical condition, excellent sickness and death benefit, adequate personal resources etc) then I would not have actively selected PPI. And this is/was entirely true too. And it is true in the case of my RBS claim too - which also has been upheld by the FOS on the same grounds. I should point out that in both cases, MBNA and RBS sent me a copy of my application form too.

So I do think this very popular MSE forum rhetoric of "mis-bought" needs to be tempered somewhat. Why was the policy mis-bought - is the KEY element of most claims. And in all the advice that is given on this forum, it seems that this is all too often completely overlooked - often when telling others that their claim has no merits.

I completely get the need to be 'fair' to others when offering advice - but sometimes that advice should be current, realistic and reflective of what is actually happening in real cases with the FOS.

I know from reading a lot of advice snippets on here, that if I came on here and sought advice regarding my own claims, I would have been told that my policies were mis-bought and that this was my decision and I would have no case for a claim. And I may well have taken that advice and given up.

dunstonh

That is a very sweeping statement would imply that the average consumner is aware of the system to the extent that they are actively playing the it and using the FOS/Bank relationship to their advantage - which I am sure you will agree, just is not true. The consumer may be benefitting from the flaw - but I suggest that there are very few indeed that are THAT aware of it.

I am sure most dont know. However, there is an increasing view that when a company rejects a complaint, the default action is to refer it to the FOS as you have nothing to lose. The FOS wasnt designed for that. Yes, the banks especially are to blame for that but claims companies are also at fault.

Furthermore, I suggest that banks are not in the habit of openly dishing out refunds - otherwise they would not spend the amount they have (and are), tactically - and sometimes pointlessly - rejecting perfectly meritous claims.

yet most of the banks have a floor limit where they will auto payout on complaints where the amount payable is below a certain level.

And when I say 'perfectly meritous' I mean claims that although you and others on here might not agree with the merits of said claims, the FOS does.

The FOS is very liberal thinking. It cannot believe that people would make fake complaints for financial gain.

I have little or no sympathy for the banks on this one. If they acted completely fair and consistently when dealing with the consumer regarding PPI, the above 'flaw' you speak of would not exist - which is what you also allude to of course.

I think no-one comes out of PPI smelling of roses. Banks sold it wrongly in a large number of cases and have badly handled the complaints process, the regulator knew it was that way for decades yet said nothing. It could have issued warnings and nipped it in the bud rather than suddenly overnight changing its mind and then retrospectively applying post regulation requirements to pre-regulation sales. Claims companies are rife at putting in fraudulent complaints and consumers are trying it on for compensation (over half of complaints dont even have PPI). It is messy all round. The problem is that genuine firms or small local firms who have little to do with this, are being dragged into it.

They say that the volume of claims is preventing the process from being carried out in a more timely manner etc etc....then they (as you say) willingly give out refunds in double quick time to those that might not have a case. Altogether not right and will only prompt more and more claims. The FOS have a role to play in this regard too. Offering concessions to banks can only be to the detriment of the philosophy of the PPI reclaim process.

Commercial reality and what is right often dont mix. I would like every complaint to be settled on its merits. However, there is little point when a system charges £900 when a complaint is rejected and the settlement figure is under that. I would prefer upheld complaints to be charged more and rejected complaints to be charged nothing. That would prevent blackmail (which does happen) and also make sure those that bad complaint handling get penalised more for making incorrect rejections.