Egg Card claim denied by Canada Square

still_savin

Had the standard denial letter yesterday from Canada Square about my Egg card PPI, saying that

• Did not requre you to take PPI as a condition to get the card
• Did not provide an advisory service
• Required you to positively confirm you wished to purchase it
• Provided full t&c and asked that you read them

I'd sent them the FOS form only partly filled in because I literally can't remember all details, but Canada Square's reply says I did have it on a card and that I filled an online application in July '04.

I'm self employed, have been since 1999, and I think I'm right in saying that no PPI could ever pay out to me then. To be totally honest, even if I'm wrong and it could pay out, it was and is my understanding that it couldn't so I would never have chosen it if I'd seen it/been given a choice. I had loads of other credit at that time and since, other credit cards, mortgages, loans, etc. and never had PPI on any of those because of my belief that it was dead money - does that not go to show that I couldn't have seen it or I would have said No?

Their statement that I "positively confirmed" that I wanted it worries me - that sounds like I actually ticked a box, rather than failed to untick one, but I really don't believe that's true as I would never choose to take PPI for the reason above and my other borrowings affirm that because they don't have it.

I've got no evidence, no statements, nothing (they sent me nothing apart from their rejection letter, and I don't have any old statements let alone the credit agreement), but I genuinely believe that PPI must have been pre-ticked.

Should I write back to Canada Square and tell them the above even though their letter says its a final response, or go to the FOS? Without any evidence to back up my case other than my firm belief I wouldn't have taken it, would the FOS consider it?

Thanks in advance for any and all answers

desperate100

Still saving- curious to know if you contacted them or if they sent you a form to fill in out of the blue like they have me. New to this stuff and just wondered if they send everyone one and then reject them.

dunstonh

I'm self employed, have been since 1999, and I think I'm right in saying that no PPI could ever pay out to me then.

No. Most PPI does cover the self employed. A significant minority does not or has too onerous terms to make it viable. So, that reason only works on those that do not cover it or have those onerous terms.

To be totally honest, even if I'm wrong and it could pay out, it was and is my understanding that it couldn't so I would never have chosen it if I'd seen it/been given a choice.

However, they say you applied for it online. So, they didnt sell it. You bought it.

does that not go to show that I couldn't have seen it or I would have said No?

It may have a tiny impact on sold cases but not on applications you put in.

Their statement that I "positively confirmed" that I wanted it worries me - that sounds like I actually ticked a box, rather than failed to untick one, but I really don't believe that's true as I would never choose to take PPI for the reason above and my other borrowings affirm that because they don't have it.

That does sound like you had to tick to have it.

The next stage would be to look at the credibility of your comments. You bought it in July 2004. You would have got a monthly statement with it showing on there had you paid it. So, why has it taken you 9 years to raise a complaint about something you said you didnt buy? Credibility can come into play in grey areas or when there is no evidence to support allegations.

Should I write back to Canada Square and tell them the above even though their letter says its a final response, or go to the FOS?

You go to the FOS. You have nothing new to present to Canada Square. Their reasons seem firm and are not wishy washy or bogus.

Without any evidence to back up my case other than my firm belief I wouldn't have taken it, would the FOS consider it?

They will review your complaint but based solely on what you have said and the assumption that self employed IS covered adequately and the Canada Square is correct, then your complaint is weak. The FOS will ask them to verify the details. You will basically be relying on an error somewhere or an incorrect rejection.

still_savin

Thanks Dunstonh for your candid reply. It certainly helps to see things from an independent perspective and at the end of the day that's how it will be - someone independent of both me and Egg working out which is the most plausible.

I'm surprised that someone looking from the outside would say that Canada Square's answer isn't 'wishy washy or bogus' though - from a quick bit of research on this board I've discovered the exact same letter was sent to someone else claiming, so it's obviously a boilerplate reply rather than one bespoke to my circumstances. That also makes me a bit less nervous about the 'positively confirmed' bit, in that they've not said "Mr savin, you did tick this box" so much as said "dear applicant, you all ticked these boxes". If their position is that I did tick a box, why haven't they said that directly rather than simply allude to it? I'd like them to confirm their position on that explicitly before I give it too much credibility.

I was also surprised that it was so easy to discount the evidence that I don't take these policies. The fact that I can demonstrate that, rather than just say it, by virtue of the other credit I got in that era, must surely demonstrate to an independent party that I genuinely was not in the habit of doing this, and the additional information of my true belief that a policy could never pay me adds further weight to this story.

Against that, Egg don't exactly come to the table with clean hands, because it is known that they used to pre-tick boxes for these policies and then not mention it being bought within the credit agreement that's sent for me to sign. Obviously I'm biased, but I think on the balance of probabilities Egg didn't draw my attention to this as they should have done.

That its taken me nine years shouldn't overly trouble an independent observer - the card was closed years ago, maybe even seven years, so nothing would make me look at it recently. I'd always thought I didn't buy these policies so I've not looked back in recent times. Only when I received yet another call from the parasitical PPI reclaim companies despite my registration on TPS did I finally think to myself 'what the hell, I'll have a look and just be sure' did I discover that of all my policies, this one actually did have it applied. There mere passage of time can't be a factor that worries the FOS when deciding claims, otherwise the huge amount of claims currently being dealt with would be easily disposed of since the vast majority of them will naturally be dealing with claims that are six to ten years old.

Nevertheless, I am still very grateful for your reply as I said above. I must make sure that I make my case with more conviction at future stages, because I obviously left you in enough doubt about the strength of my argument that you thought I had only a modest chance!

dunstonh

I'm surprised that someone looking from the outside would say that Canada Square's answer isn't 'wishy washy or bogus' though - from a quick bit of research on this board I've discovered the exact same letter was sent to someone else claiming, so it's obviously a boilerplate reply rather than one bespoke to my circumstances.

Their response states a date you applied and that it was online and your positively selected it. They are firm statements for them to make. Wishy washy tends to be things that are not real rejection reasons or not really answering the issues. Your response does state facts. Whether the facts are right is not something I or anyone else here can verify.

I was also surprised that it was so easy to discount the evidence that I don't take these policies.

Maybe you were not aware of it before. Maybe you decided to say yes this time. There is a first time for everything. However, if no sales rep was involved and you positively selected it, then it doesn't really matter as it wasnt sold to you.

There mere passage of time can't be a factor that worries the FOS when deciding claims, otherwise the huge amount of claims currently being dealt with would be easily disposed of since the vast majority of them will naturally be dealing with claims that are six to ten years old.

With factually provable reasons it isnt an issue. It tends to be an issue where you are asking for a balance of probability decision. With monthly premium PPI, where there is a transaction every month, the credibility is eroded a little but it would depend on other factors. With loan PPI, as you never see it apart from the start, it is easier to complain later without loss of credibility.

I must make sure that I make my case with more conviction at future stages, because I obviously left you in enough doubt about the strength of my argument that you thought I had only a modest chance!

I do play devils advocate at times. We dont have access to the information about your complaint, your files and only have your side of the complaint. We cannot call the outcomes. We see many that succeed when you think they shouldnt (based solely on what was said) and we see many that get rejected when you think they have a strong case. So, letting you know the potential issues and explaining them helps you get prepared for the next stage.

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

I'm surprised that someone looking from the outside would say that Canada Square's answer isn't 'wishy washy or bogus' though - from a quick bit of research on this board I've discovered the exact same letter was sent to someone else claiming, so it's obviously a boilerplate reply rather than one bespoke to my circumstances.

None of the letters sent (whether successful or otherwise) are bespoke. All the claims handler does is choose the most appropriate form letter and add your name and address. Banks don't even divulge why they are upholding complaints. Certainly no point complaining to FOS that you received a form letter of rejection.

As Dunstonh said, a complaint about mis-selling online is very difficult to prove because it means you bought the insurance rather than being (mis) sold it. You are reliant on other errors being discovered with the sale. I certainly don't see your chances at FOS being "modest" I'm afraid-more like slim.

Did you check whether your insurance did cover the self employed? If it did (as is likely), your whole complaint is weakened considerably more..

Do also be aware that a FOS referral is currently taking in excess of eighteen months

still_savin

Thanks both for the replies (albeit not encouraging ones )
The points you both raised are interesting, especially about policies including self-employment which I hadn't realised was possible. I can of course ask Canada Square if the policy included that, but only by post - there's no phone number listed in their letter - and I'd also like to actually see the wording myself rather than take their word for it. Does anyone here have a copy sent to them of the PPI policy itself that I can have a browse of?

And the pre-ticked box business - I've mentioned it in each post but neither of you have picked up on it, so am I wrong in thinking that this was in and of itself evidence of bad selling? If Egg did (and I recognise fully that's to be proved by me rather than disproved by them) make PPI an opt-out rather than opt-in choice, does this change the burden of proof for mis-selling from me to them?

I'm not infallible and I do make mistakes as much as the next man, but I was always, right up until the first reply in this thread, of the very firm belief that a policy couldn't pay me out. If I can convince the outside party of the validity of that statement, the question of whether it is a correct belief of not is irrelevant, isn't it? If I offered you an insurance policy that you believed would only pay out in Madeupistan and you didn't have a passport, it's irrelevant if there's something in the small print that means it could pay out in the UK - you wouldn't buy it, because it couldn't work for you, right?

Please don't misunderstand me here - I'm not trying to persuade you of the validity of my claim (after all, you're not going to decide on whether I get a refund or not), but merely trying to see what it is about my argument that you find so weak. Thanks to both again.

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

the pre-ticked box business - I've mentioned it in each post but neither of you have picked up on it, so am I wrong in thinking that this was in and of itself evidence of bad selling?

You forget that regardless of receiving a "form" rejection, the first thing the Bank would check as part of their investigation was whether there actually would have been a pre-ticked box at the time of your application. Their rejection of your complaint would seem to indicate that no pre-populated box was used.

No point requesting other people's policy details either. You need to know if your individual policy covered your self employment. Only if the policy terms were too onerous would it be deemed unsuitable.

And yes, the burden of proof is upon the complainant.

dunstonh

And the pre-ticked box business - I've mentioned it in each post but neither of you have picked up on it, so am I wrong in thinking that this was in and of itself evidence of bad selling? If Egg did (and I recognise fully that's to be proved by me rather than disproved by them) make PPI an opt-out rather than opt-in choice, does this change the burden of proof for mis-selling from me to them?

I have interpreted the fact they have said it was positively selected as you requiring to tick it. For them to respond with the way you have said they have suggests you raised that in your complaint and they have denied it. The ombudsman does not like reverse ticking (tick to not have it) or pre-ticked options.

-taff

If you use the internet wayback machine, you can see exactly what the insurance would and wouldn't have covered. It's all still there.

still_savin

-taff wrote: »

If you use the internet wayback machine, you can see exactly what the insurance would and wouldn't have covered. It's all still there.

I'd absolutely love to, but unless I know the URL I can't find anything there that will help me!