Nationwide PPI

-taff

there's another complaint reason to forward to the FOS then.

Insider101

-taff wrote: »

there's another complaint reason to forward to the FOS then.

Say what???

-taff

The rejection letter says it was a non-advised sale, but they filled the forms in in the branch with an 'advisor' / bank employee there. They could argue [probably truthfully] that they thought the sale was advised.

Insider101

-taff wrote: »

The rejection letter says it was a non-advised sale, but they filled the forms in in the branch with an 'advisor' / bank employee there. They could argue [probably truthfully] that they thought the sale was advised.

I doubt this would wash unless there was something specifically said to give that impression. Even then the problem is proving it.

If the sale was 2005 or later the OP should have been given disclosure docs stating that no advice or recommendation would be provided.

Camaro3

The basis for my argument is as follows:
When in branch the advisor asked all the relevant questions (I have photocopies of the interview forms in her handwriting). She explained the advantages of the PPI but led me to believe this was paid for on a monthly basis (not that it was single premium PPI). I was never asked if I had any pre-existing medical conditions.
Finally, when dismissing the complaint, the handler states that I received a rebate when the loan was paid off early. He is sure that I would have received all relevant paperwork at the time and is relying on this as part of his argument. If that is the case it will not be a problem for him to produce that paperwork, which is what I am now going to ask him, (bearing in mind I have already asked for a SAR & Nationwide did not supply that paperwork)>

Insider101

Camaro3 wrote: »

The basis for my argument is as follows:
When in branch the advisor asked all the relevant questions (I have photocopies of the interview forms in her handwriting). She explained the advantages of the PPI but led me to believe this was paid for on a monthly basis (not that it was single premium PPI). I was never asked if I had any pre-existing medical conditions.
Finally, when dismissing the complaint, the handler states that I received a rebate when the loan was paid off early. He is sure that I would have received all relevant paperwork at the time and is relying on this as part of his argument. If that is the case it will not be a problem for him to produce that paperwork, which is what I am now going to ask him, (bearing in mind I have already asked for a SAR & Nationwide did not supply that paperwork)>

The medical conditions thing only really works if you have a significant and chronic long term one where there is a substantial likelihood of you having to be off work for more than 30 days with a recurrence of it. From what you have said it doesn't look like this is the case.

You might be able to get alternative redress if the rebate you received when you cancelled the policy was less than proportionate. Might be best to ask them about this.

max555

It sounds like an advised sale to me and I am surprised it wasn't viewed this way by whomever made the decision. The difference is that an internet sale is viewed as non advised and no matter how unsuitable the policy is for you, if you ticked to accept ppi that's your decision. As you went into a branch and there is evidence of this I am surprised the case handler did not view the sale as advised, in which case healt conditions etc come into play. I would write back and ask for a reassessment. (Refinancing won't be considered if you pay ppi monthly as this was introduced to eliminate the effect of refinancing)

magpiecottage

If a rebate was received, that would suggest a single premium. Therefore a complaint to FOS that they would otherwise have borrowed less (and paid less interest) MAY be successful.

However, if it was clear that this would be the case it is less likely.