Nationwide PPI - Advise

Watson306

Hi Guys,
I wrote to Nationwide sometime ago (think it was back in february), anyway they advised that I had a telephone conversation where they had followed protocol (I couldnt remember this conversation this call at all), so I replied bakc to ask if I could have the date of the call, and a transcript of the call (this was all soon after my original letter).
I then did not hear anything, so I wrote another letter in June, and then was left a voicemail to call somebody within the complaint department, which I did and they advised that they would send me a copy of the conversation on a CD, and was advised that this conversation took place in 2003 (I still could not remember the conversation, but it was around the time that my father was diagnosed with Cancer, so I couldnt definitely say that the call hadnt happened).

So around 10 days ago I recieved the CD, and then had to go through security checks to get access to the wav file, which I then passed, and was then able to listen to the call.
During the call I was asked if I wanted PPI and I said no, they then would not leave it and in the end I gave in (still cannot remember this).

Anyway, my question is do I have any chance of any claim for the ppi, and also should I complain to anyone for the amount of time it has taken to get to this point?

Also in my second letter when I requested the date and a copy of this conversation I asked if they would cancel the PPI, but didnt hear anything, but they now want me to go into my local branch to confirm my signature, so I should at least be able to back date that?

Thanks in advance

[Deleted User]

Watson306 wrote: »

During the call I was asked if I wanted PPI and I said no, they then would not leave it and in the end I gave in (still cannot remember this).

Whether you remember it is irrelevant if it was your voice on the tape. "Giving in" to their persuasion is not mis-selling unless they told you it was compulsory.

Watson306 wrote: »

my question is do I have any chance of any claim for the ppi, and also should I complain to anyone for the amount of time it has taken to get to this point?

Your complaint was basically concluded back when you received the original rejection. Since the recording of the call only confirms what the Bank told you in the original letter, it's hard to see how you can take this any further. Although you could certainly forward it to FOS if it is less than six months since your original refusal.

You could complain about the time the Bank has taken to reply to your request for proof of what was said, but the most you can expect in return is an apology for the delay.

Watson306 wrote: »

In my second letter when I requested the date and a copy of this conversation I asked if they would cancel the PPI, but didnt hear anything, but they now want me to go into my local branch to confirm my signature, so I should at least be able to back date that?

If you have proof that you sent such a letter and it contained a request for your PPI to be cancelled, then I would expect the Bank to honour your request and backdate it accordingly. You'll probably have to write and complain in order for this to happen though.

dunstonh

Anyway, my question is do I have any chance of any claim for the ppi, and also should I complain to anyone for the amount of time it has taken to get to this point?

We havent heard the call. You have. What do you think?

If you said yes to it and the information given was correct, then it harms your chances (as you cant complain that didnt happen). However, if there is anything wrong said, then it helps your chances.

Watson306

Thanks to you both.
I am not sure if any of what they advised me on the call was correct.
And I know that just because I cant remember it, is not enough for a claim.

They have acknowledged that I ask for the PPI to be cancelled, but said they couldnt do it because my signature was different to the one on file (I suspect it has changed since opening account back in 1994).

Anyway, it sounds like I have little or no hope if I open a case with FOS then?

Thanks one again.

[Deleted User]

Watson306 wrote: »

I am not sure if any of what they advised me on the call was correct.

Both you and the Bank have listened to the recording. The Bank have concluded that what you were told was correct and no mis-selling took place, but you are still not sure?
Did they at any time tell you the insurance was compulsory? If not and you agreed to the insurance, it's hard to see any mis-selling complaint sticking even at the Ombudsman.

Watson306 wrote: »

They have acknowledged that I ask for the PPI to be cancelled, but said they couldnt do it because my signature was different to the one on file (I suspect it has changed since opening account back in 1994).

Well you should certainly be able to push for the cancellation to be backdated to when you originally asked for it to be removed.

Watson306 wrote: »

Anyway, it sounds like I have little or no hope if I open a case with FOS then?

It's important to remember that it's not somehow wrong to have insurance. In order for it to be refunded, it has to have been mis-sold to you. Nothing you have said indicates that any mis-selling took place and you say you don't know if anything they said was wrong. It'll be an uphill battle if you refer this case to FOS given the circumstances and the evidence provided by the Bank.

Was the insurance suitable for you? Were you perhaps unemployed, a student or retired at the time? Were you self employed? Only if the answer to any of these questions is yes do you still have a realistic chance at the Ombudsman.

On what basis did you originally complain, by the way? If you simply said you didn't know you had PPI and it was added automatically then the Bank have refuted that completely by providing the recording of you agreeing to it.

Cockney_Wideboy

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Whether you remember it is irrelevant if it was your voice on the tape. "Giving in" to their persuasion is not mis-selling unless they told you it was compulsory.

This is not entirely true. Based upon what the OP has said;

- They refused PPI initially
- They state that the institution "would not leave it and in the end I gave in"

This is the ONLY information we have been given with this case. We have no other information and based upon this information, my opinions are:

If the institution continued to pursuade or badger the OP to select PPI by explaining the benefit and not the cost and/or specific exclusions; or if the institution did not ask key questions as to the suitabilty of the product (we don't know this yet - the OP hasn't divulged the specifics of the call) - then I think that this is very much a mis-sell and that the OP has a decent enough chance of a claim.

You know as well as I do that the FOS view is that the rules surrounding suitability should be retrospectively applied - indeed that is the ENTIRE BASIS of PPI redress. And to say that the product has been mis-bought might fit well with a personal opinion; however in the real world, the FOS appear to take a very different view. And that is a fact.

The FOS actually ask WHY a product was bought - not apply the philosophy that 'because the product was bought it could therefore have not been mis-sold'. Otherwise I and countless others would never have been compensated after ticking that box...

I have based all of this upon the little information supplied - and what is happening in the real world. Not what I think is right or wrong.

dunstonh

And to say that the product has been mis-bought might fit well with a personal opinion; however in the real world, the FOS appear to take a very different view. And that is a fact.

If you look at the FOS publications on ombudsman decisions, they do differentiate between non-advised and advised. Frequently, non-advised is classified as advised due to errors by the seller. However, whilst the FOS wont use language like "misbought" they will frequently disregard suitability issues on non-advised cases as non-advised are not required to check as much as advised. A lot of people do find their non-advised sale classified as advised due to seller error (poor wording used, coming off script etc. Words such as I recommend you do this or advise you to do this frequently result in a non-advised case being called advised).

The firm is allowed to use a sales process and attempt to disturb but it should not cross a line. Different people may have different views as to what that line is. However, a recording that exists should make it a lot easier to decide if a line was crossed. Attempting to overturn a decline once or twice is fine. If it goes on beyond that then you are pushing it. Tone of voice can come into it as well. All these things we have no benefit of hearing.

Cockney_Wideboy

dunstonh wrote: »

If you look at the FOS publications on ombudsman decisions, they do differentiate between non-advised and advised. Frequently, non-advised is classified as advised due to errors by the seller. However, whilst the FOS wont use language like "misbought" they will frequently disregard suitability issues on non-advised cases as non-advised are not required to check as much as advised. A lot of people do find their non-advised sale classified as advised due to seller error (poor wording used, coming off script etc. Words such as I recommend you do this or advise you to do this frequently result in a non-advised case being called advised).

The firm is allowed to use a sales process and attempt to disturb but it should not cross a line. Different people may have different views as to what that line is. However, a recording that exists should make it a lot easier to decide if a line was crossed. Attempting to overturn a decline once or twice is fine. If it goes on beyond that then you are pushing it. Tone of voice can come into it as well. All these things we have no benefit of hearing.

I agree with all of that. Hence my compulsion to attempt to temper previous advice that appeared to lean towards telling the OP to give it up....because they should not.

Watson306

I am confused about what to do now then.
I will have to listen to the recording again, but as I remember they only stipulated the benefits of it, and didnt really ask my circumstances.
I have to admit I caved in too easily going by the transcript of the call - bit disapointed with myself (there is no doubt it was me), but I can only put it down to now knowing what I was being offered at the time.

Is it worth raising a case with the FOS, or as I stand a small chance willit be too much hassle for no reward?

amersall

What was asked and how many times did you say no before accepting?this is what yo need to listen to.

I was once sold PPI on the phone and I took it because the operator said "what if you die, your family will be left with a debt to repay"
I found out later this was not case as the debt was in my sole name and would come out of my estate when I die, no family member would have to repay this.

dunstonh

I am confused about what to do now then.

It is difficult for us to give you a solid straight answer. If the sales of PPI had been done correctly in the first place then there wouldnt be this issue. However, not all sales were wrong. the issue is not so much about the product but the way it was sold.

I will have to listen to the recording again, but as I remember they only stipulated the benefits of it, and didnt really ask my circumstances.

Non advised dont have to check financial need for it. Just make sure you are eligible for it. If they didnt ask questions that impact on eligibility then it only matters if you are actually ineligible in those areas. You dont get lucky on a technicality unless it actually affects you. So, in theory they could ask no questions and get away with it because none of the things they didnt ask apply to you.

Is it worth raising a case with the FOS, or as I stand a small chance willit be too much hassle for no reward?

Your choice. Certain types of PPI have low success rates and high success rates. Mortgage PPI is very low. Loan PPi is very high. Credit card PPI is in the middle. If it was with someone like Cap One (where only 6% of PPI complaints are overturned by the FOS) you would say its probably not worth it but with others running at 50-60% overturn, you may well succeed.