Barclaycard box ticked on form

Cockney_Wideboy

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Well all I can say is that the comments made by Martin Lewis to the Telegraph, where he urged ALL consumers that have had a claim rejected by Lloyds TSB to go straight to the FOS, cannot be helpful to rectifying the process, surely. But I can completely understand why such advice was proffered, but its hardly a solution to the problem is it. It is a sad state of affairs that such advice is even needed imo.

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

Such commercial practices should not exist, let alone be used to exploit flaws in the system that spawn spurious, tenuous or downright fraudulent claims. Bank have a responsibility. The FCA have a greater responsibility to implement a process that is in favour and promotes honesty. Said process should also be more consumer focussed in that it makes it far easier to claim, thus negating the use of unscrupulous CMC's. While most on here have a basic idea how to claim ourselves, most ppl out there simply do not have a clue where to start. And in all the CMC commercials out there over the last few years, has there been a SINGLE commercial from the govt giving consumer advice on PPI?? For crying out loud, we get govt ads on healthy eating, claiming benefits, tax credits etc....so why not PPI?

dunstonh wrote: »

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

How nice to be so trusting...

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

I completely agree. What message is being given that when somebody makes a complaint against you (and we both know the definition of "complaint" is ANY negative sentiment or comment of dissatisfaction of course), you have to be financially penalised regardless of the merits of that complaint? A ludicrous situation. And somebody earling a 6-figure salary or more, probably came up with that one...

JuicyJesus

Cockney_Wideboy wrote: »

How nice to be so trusting...

Natalie Ceeney (chief ombudsman) is on record as stating that if the FOS are receiving made up/fraudulent complaints then it's the fault of the banks because they should have handled the made up complaints better originally. There are obvious flaws in this reasoning but they don't appear to penetrate Natalie Ceeney's skull.

As far as the FOS are concerned, every consumer bringing a complaint to them is doing so in utmost good faith and out of genuine concern. Even though this very website, one of if not the largest consumer affairs website in the UK, and one where the FOS has a board representative, has a pithy little rhyme on its page about PPI saying "go to your bank and it'll say no, then it's off to the Ombudsman where your chances grow", which to me strongly implies "even if the bank has good grounds for rejecting, go to the Ombudsman anyway because you have nothing to lose and you might get lucky", which I'd hardly call acting in good faith.

I like the idea of an independent arbiter of complaints, but one that is wilfully blind to the fact it is being gamed by compensation chasers and claims companies (now there's a Venn diagram with a big overlap) while charging even innocent parties through the nose - something Ceeney also considers to be the banks' fault, since even if the bank did nothing wrong they should have dealt with it better in her view - is unhelpful at best and actively placing blocks in the way of people with genuine grievances at worst. When a legitimate complaint can be held up for years because FOS have a massive backlog of PPI complaints then something is terribly wrong.

Brains64

dunstonh wrote: »

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.



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.



Your opinion doesnt stack up for a postal application.

Yes, it was a postal application that the OP made from what they said but correct me if I'm wrong here, when the form was sent to the bank it still has to be looked at and processed manually by someone in the bank doesn't it??, if you think about it, say a bank had no problem with mis-selling PPI right??, why then they're hardly going to have much of an ethical dilemma over putting a tick in a box on a form sent by a customer whom they will presume wants some form of cover, this was really the essence of the whole PPI mis-selling fiasco.

This presumption on the banks part that everyone would need insurance was their biggest excuse so if a customer didn't tick the box to indicate that they wanted it then it might have been just seen as a careless oversight on their part and the bank was just being...uh...helpful , after all, I'm sure we've all now and again filled out a form and forgot to tick a box or answer the odd question here and there, let's face it, it's QED :doh:, happens to the best, especially when there's a lot on the form and you might fill it out in a hurry, it doesn't mean we're not interested in the particular question or option, we just clean forgot, that's all, I guess you can see what I'm getting at, namely, the bank might have just conveniently seen it as a case of the question 'do you want PPI?' being overlooked rather than someone not wanting it.

JuicyJesus

Brains64 wrote: »

Yes, it was a postal application that the OP made from what they said but correct me if I'm wrong here, when the form was sent to the bank it still has to be looked at and processed manually by someone in the bank doesn't it??, if you think about it, say a bank had no problem with mis-selling PPI right??, why then they're hardly going to have much of an ethical dilemma over putting a tick in a box on a form sent by a customer whom they will presume wants some form of cover, this was really the essence of the whole PPI mis-selling fiasco.

PPI mis-selling, when it occurred, was rarely actual policy, and people processing paper applications wouldn't have been targeted on PPI sales due to their non-involvement in actually getting someone to take out PPI. As such someone processing a postal application has absolutely no reason to tick a PPI box.

Also, if we're going down the road of "the documentation is unreliable because the bank might have altered it" then we may as well not bother investigating any complaints because the documentation could have been fraudulently altered.

Also also, consumer's recollections fade over the years. And someone who sees PPI on their monthly statements for X years but then says they didn't know they had it is not particularly credible, especially when they say they most definitely did not tick a box X years ago.

jammother

Ok - not sure I liked it being inferred that I am blackmailing Barclays. It would not be cheaper for them to settle at my case runs into the thousands. I am not accusing Barclays of altering my form either.

Barclays claim I used a postal application and therefore would have ticked the box myself. They cannot produce any evidence of this because it is not true. So they could not produce the SAR or any paperwork to the FOS. When I complained I was still in the six year limit. I have been waiting 22 months for the FOS to get the paperwork from Barclays - the paperwork on which they turned down my complaint. The paperwork which doesn't exist.

I filled the application form online anyway and so there would not be any handwritten application. I applied for two cards at the same time:

A was a postal application with no PPI

B was an online application with a pre-ticked box.

Barclays have told me there was no PPI on A despite me asking them to investigate B. They turned down my complaint because they investigated the wrong card (A). When they investigated the right card (B), they told me there was no PPI and I had to provide statements as proof - I even had the policy number. They have admitted they made a mistake to the FOS.

Barclays have agreed to pay back the premiums because I was mis-sold the policy. They did this within five hours because they've looked at the business file and realised it was not a paper application. I don't know whether the confusion between my two cards was intentional or just miscommunication.

dunstonh

Ok - not sure I liked it being inferred that I am blackmailing Barclays. It would not be cheaper for them to settle at my case runs into the thousands. I am not accusing Barclays of altering my form either.

That is just how the conversation went in general terms. However, in respect of amount, one bank had a £3000 floor limit on auto payout for a period. So, that mounts can be quite high.

Barclays claim I used a postal application and therefore would have ticked the box myself. They cannot produce any evidence of this because it is not true.

However, there is no evidence to say it is not the case either. Proving the position helps but it does not automatically mean it didnt happen if they cant provide the evidence.

Barclays have agreed to pay back the premiums because I was mis-sold the policy. They did this within five hours because they've looked at the business file and realised it was not a paper application. I don't know whether the confusion between my two cards was intentional or just miscommunication.

Is that what they have said because 5 hours does not sound enough time for the the communication from you to the FOS to have got to Barclays, an investigation completed and then an answer back to the FOS to give to you. This smells of the FOS giving their usual "settle to avoid the FOS fee" option which Barclays have chosen to exercise. It may well be that they dont want to fight it as they feel the odds are not strong enough in their favour. However, whatever the reason, a reinvestigation is unlikely to have occurred in just 5 hours.

jammother

I was surprised to get a phone call back from the FOS so quickly.

I have no idea of the ins and outs of the conversation between Barclays and the FOS but I'm just pleased after two and a half years finally to be coming to the end of it. I no longer have to chase it up - I just wanted a conclusion one way or the other

If it's an auto pay out then they should have investigated my claim properly in the first place.

[Deleted User]

jammother wrote: »

If it's an auto pay out then they should have investigated my claim properly in the first place.

That was the point of the conversation after your initial post. Your weak complaint was already properly rejected by the Bank-they only capitulated to avoid paying the FOS fee and then risk paying you out in addition.

Despite this, well done for your patience and fortitude, but make no mistake; your complaint was not upheld. You were lucky enough to be able to take advantage of the Bank's reluctance to pay the FOS fee.

dunstonh wrote: »

However, whatever the reason, a reinvestigation is unlikely to have occurred in just 5 hours.

You're darn right there was no re-investigation in five hours!

dunstonh

If it's an auto pay out then they should have investigated my claim properly in the first place.

There are plenty of people who have had investigated complaints and have been correctly rejected but still get paid out under auto payout.

Whether you have a case or not has little to do with many auto payouts. It is a bit like whiplash claims on car insurance. Its cheaper to settle than to argue the point.

jammother

I don't think I've said that my complaint was upheld - I said in the opening post that Barclays have decided to make an offer.