First Direct rejecting PPI compaint

mikegamez

Hi guys, I have just recieved a letter from First Direct saying that PPI was not missold on my loan. This forum is huge and I can't see any current advice that is applicable to me (sorry).
I complained that because the transaction occured entirely on the phone, I wasn't given enough information about the PPI protection.
They have said, they have checked thier records and I said I didn't require any advice , therefore, they didn't assess my needs or existing provisions and a personal recomendation was provided in writting.
I have no detailed recollection of the phone conversation and it is out of character for me not to ask about additional charges. They have provided a photocopy of this form that I had to sign to agree to the loan and PPI and this just has a tick in the "I wish to purchase a Personal Loan Protection Plan" box.
Does this mean I have no grounds to get my money back?
Is this normal for a PPI claim?
Many, many thanks for any advice given in advance.
Thanks,
Mike

Insider101

mikegamez wrote: »

Hi guys, I have just recieved a letter from First Direct saying that PPI was not missold on my loan. This forum is huge and I can't see any current advice that is applicable to me (sorry).
I complained that because the transaction occured entirely on the phone, I wasn't given enough information about the PPI protection.
They have said, they have checked thier records and I said I didn't require any advice , therefore, they didn't assess my needs or existing provisions and a personal recomendation was provided in writting.
I have no detailed recollection of the phone conversation and it is out of character for me not to ask about additional charges. They have provided a photocopy of this form that I had to sign to agree to the loan and PPI and this just has a tick in the "I wish to purchase a Personal Loan Protection Plan" box.
Does this mean I have no grounds to get my money back?
Is this normal for a PPI claim?
Many, many thanks for any advice given in advance.
Thanks,
Mike

It's perfectly normal to reject a complaint if you don't think you've done anything wrong, yes.

Don't take this the wrong way, but if your complaint was worded the same way your post above was then I'd reject it as well. If you have got any grounds for getting money back then you haven't told us about them because the above doesn't count.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment:

1) You've complained that you "weren't given enough information" about the product but in the same post said you have no detailed recollection of the conversation? If you have no detailed recollection then presumably you can't really remember what info you were or weren't given.
2) You've stated that by your own admission you would usually ask about any "additional charges". Is it not likely that you did ask and got a full answer but have just forgotten over time?
3) What information, specifically, do you feel that you should have been given and weren't?
4) Why would this information have made the difference between you taking the policy and not doing?
5) If you weren't given enough information then why did you not ask for more?

The problem is that your complaint is vague and wishy washy. Complaints about not being given information only really work when there's a specific term or condition of the cover which would have had specific bearing on you and you weren't aware of it. Simply being vague and stating that they didn't tell you what it wasn't doesn't work - who takes out an insurance policy unquestioningly if they don't have a clue what it covers? And if they do then more fool them.

As I said, this complaint comes across more as though you've decided you want the money back because everyone else is doing it and are trying to finding reason to complain. As opposed to genuinely being dissatisfied because you believe you've been wronged and complaining because of this. Which is the way a complaint should work.

mikegamez

Hi Insider101, many thanks for the very fast reply.
I guess you are saying I wasn't complaining at all in my letter!
I do actually feel I wasn't given any information about the PPI and I don't remember being told it was optional.
Are these not good enough reasons to try and get some of the PPI back - and is it too late now I have been rejected?
As before, many thanks in advance,
Mike

[Deleted User]

mikegamez wrote: »

Are these not good enough reasons to try and get some of the PPI back - and is it too late now I have been rejected?

Your rejection letter will have detailed your right to refer your complaint to the Ombudsman. You have six months to do this.

Do realise that you did indeed complain, but the Bank have ruled that you had no basis for complaint. Your complaint is very weak and you provided no evidence of any wrong doing, so FOS may well rule in the Bank's favour and they'll likely take up to eighteen months to do so.

mikegamez

Hi Moneyineptitude, many thanks for your reply. I guess this isn't worth persuing then.
Many thanks for all your help.

[Deleted User]

mikegamez wrote: »

I guess this isn't worth persuing then.

I wasn't attempting to put you off entirely, simply pointing out that the complaint was weak and the FOS queue very long. By all means refer to the Ombudsman if you genuinely feel the Bank have mis-sold to you.

Insider101

mikegamez wrote: »

Hi Insider101, many thanks for the very fast reply.
I guess you are saying I wasn't complaining at all in my letter!
I do actually feel I wasn't given any information about the PPI and I don't remember being told it was optional.
Are these not good enough reasons to try and get some of the PPI back - and is it too late now I have been rejected?
As before, many thanks in advance,
Mike

I wasn't saying that you weren't complaining, simply that your complaint was not a strong one. If somebody asked you the five questions above, how would you answer them? Because if these popped into my mind straight away, your case handler was probably thinking along similar lines.

Re: the comments above, again this comes across as vague and manufactured. If you weren't given any information about the product then why did you take it? You have said you don't recall being told it was optional but in the previous post said that you don't recall very much about the conversation at all. Your lack of memory is not surprising bearing in mind that it must have been a few years ago, but loss of memory is not grounds for complaint.

There is no requirement to specifically use the word optional. The way the process is supposed to work is they offer you the PPI and ask if you would like to take it out. If you say no then fair enough. If you express an interest they tell you more about it. If that's the way it happened then the fact that they didn't use the word "optional" is a mere technicality not grounds for complaint. If you were actually led to believe it was compulsory then that's a different matter but even that is usually he said-she said.

Don't take this the wrong way I am simply trying to explain the thought process that will be going through your case handler's mind. But the wording "reason to try and get some of the money back" in your post again implies that your complaint is motivated by wanting the money rather than a genuine sense of dissatisfaction. Whether or not this is the case only you can tell. But if you've come across the same way in your complaint letter then I am not surprised you've been rejected.

You have the right to refer it to FOS and can do within six months. But my honest opinion is that you're going to need to give better grounds and come across as more convincing than you have so far.

misschicken

Have they provided a copy of the records which say you said you didn't require any advice?

-taff

search for amersall and single premium, epsecially if the loan was for more than 5 years.

-taff

never mind, done it for you...

post #2

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4195441