Egg Card claim denied by Canada Square

-taff

google internet wayback machine
put in egg.com

?

still_savin

Thanks for that - I've not used it before (what a wonderful tool!).
Okay, this appears to be useful. The t&c for credit card protection at http://web.archive.org/web/20040814185700/http://new.egg.com/visitor/0,,3_11086--View_1077,00.html taken in August '04 (which is their nearest to my date) say:

On the Start Date You:-
(...)must be in Work.

Meaning of words used in this Policy
"WORK": being in Employment or Self-Employed.
"SELF-EMPLOYED": You are actively working alone or in partnership with others, and paying Class 2 National Insurance contributions and being assessable to Income Tax under Schedule D Case I or II.

So, to qualify, I can be self-employed, as long as I pay tax and NI. I'm exempt from both (myself and my partner work as high-risk foster parents for our local authority, and are permitted to tick the box for 'special exceptions apply' on our annual tax declaration. I've not paid tax or NI contributions since long before this card.

It seems fairly clear-cut, then. This policy could (as I'd previously thought, although for different circumstances) never pay me out. I maintain that I wouldn't have bought it if it had been brought to my attention, and I can prove that. I maintain that it could never pay me, and I can now prove that too. Isn't it now reasonable to assume that the policy was not brought to my attention?

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

Isn't it now reasonable to assume that the policy was not brought to my attention?

As we've already pointed out, you BOUGHT this policy-it wasn't sold to you.
Having said that, if the policy was not suitable, it now depends on whether a FOS adjudicator is persuaded that there was enough information available on the website for you to have made an informed decision. You'll know in about eighteen months...

Pity you didn't look at those terms and conditions prior to accepting the PPI option...

still_savin

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

As we've already pointed out, you BOUGHT this policy-it wasn't sold to you.

How did I 'buy' it? Someone took my money and gave me a worthless 'product' without bothering to tell me that they'd done it. In what twisted universe does that say I 'bought' it? If your bank cleared out your current account and sent you a calculator, did you 'buy' it?

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Having said that, if the policy was not suitable, it now depends on whether a FOS adjudicator is persuaded that there was enough information available on the website for you to have made an informed decision.

An informed decision? Great, that would work. Only one question - how can I make an informed decision about something I wasn't aware I was buying?

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You'll know in about eighteen months...

Pity you didn't look at those terms and conditions prior to accepting the PPI option...

To be honest, I think that's rather a cheap shot. I didn't. Honestly, I am grateful for all advice in this thread, but there's really no need for petty jibes

still_savin

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No body sold you the product, you chose to buy it of your own volition. You accuse the Bank of "giving" you the product, but that's hardly the case with an internet sale unless you can show evidence to the contrary.

I have already given ample evidence of my desire not to use these products. As to whether I would have bought this one, I must rely on the balance of probabilities. I think, obviously, it is in my favour.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

But the Bank say you were aware and unless you can show that there was a pre-populated box selecting PPI you are unlikely to get any further with your complaint. A FOS adjudicator may feel that the information on the site was not readily available, but that is really your one hope now.

The bank have said nothing of the sort. All they have done is allude to things, carefully staying clear of outright statements. It is my statement that Egg deliberately, intentionally, attempted to trick customers into buying something they may not want, and that on this occasion they succeeded. If the bank would like to make a further statement explicitly stating their position, I would be forced to give it due attention.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

How is it a "cheap shot" to suggest you should have carefully read the terms and conditions? All people mis-sold PPI should have done this.
As for knowing in eighteen months, that's currently the waiting time for a FOS referral.

Undoubtedly those who knew they bought it should have read the relevant information. Those who, like me, were tricked into buying it had absolutely no need of reading information about a product they were not buying.

I can't help but get the feeling you think that I am lying. I'm sorry if I've given that impression.

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

How did I 'buy' it?

No body sold you the product, you chose to buy it of your own volition. You accuse the Bank of "giving" you the product, but that's hardly the case with an internet sale unless you can show evidence to the contrary.

still_savin wrote: »

how can I make an informed decision about something I wasn't aware I was buying?

But the Bank say you were aware and unless you can show that there was a pre-populated box selecting PPI you are unlikely to get any further with your complaint.
If you didn't know you bought the policy, why didn't you query it back when it first started appearing on every statement as a separate charge each month?
A FOS adjudicator may feel that the information on the site was not readily available, but that is really your one hope now.

still_savin wrote: »

To be honest, I think that's rather a cheap shot. I didn't. Honestly, I am grateful for all advice in this thread, but there's really no need for petty jibes

How is it a "cheap shot" to suggest you should have carefully read the terms and conditions? All people mis-sold PPI should have done this.
As for knowing in eighteen months, that's currently the waiting time for a FOS referral.

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

As to whether I would have bought this one, I must rely on the balance of probabilities. I think, obviously, it is in my favour.

So why then did you continue to pay for something you didn't choose or want? It would have been on every monthly statement as a separate charge.

still_savin wrote: »

The bank have said nothing of the sort.

In rejecting your complaint this is exactly what they have said, albeit in a form letter that cannot be misconstrued.

still_savin wrote: »

Those who, like me, were tricked into buying it had absolutely no need of reading information about a product they were not buying.

Again, if that was the case, why did you pay it for years afterwards?

still_savin wrote: »

I can't help but get the feeling you think that I am lying.

Not at all. I am just trying to show you how the Bank (and ultimately) FOS view your complaint.

still_savin

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

In rejecting your complaint this is exactly what they have said, albeit in a form letter that cannot be misconstrued.

No. Unfortunately, it is my experience that banks, and by extension Canada Square as their representatives, are willing to lie and cheat in order to avoid being held to account for previous wrongdoings. It would appear that the courts agree with that viewpoint, given their fairly solid condemnation of underhand tactics used to sell this product, and other instances such as the LIBOR rate scandal. However, quite irrespective of my (valid) prejudices, this is an instance where it is right and fair and proper that there is no room for ambiguity. If Canada Square's position is that the box was not pre-ticked, it is for them to state unequivocally "the PPI box is not pre-ticked". They won't get away with carefully phrased non-statements hinting that they may be in the right. I have asked them to make that statement, and anything other than that statement will be viewed by me as an admission that it was pre-ticked, and the Ombudsman will be compelled to agree with that view simply by virtue of their refusal to deny it.

[Deleted User]

still_savin wrote: »

it is my experience that banks, and by extension Canada Square as their representatives, are willing to lie and cheat in order to avoid being held to account for previous wrongdoings..

I'll leave it there as I've no wish to debate whether Banks lie and cheat. Take your complaint to FOS.

still_savin

I'm sorry you find that position so difficult to get to grips with. That banks have cheated customers is no longer open to debate but is an absolute fact, evidenced by the legislation that forces them to reconcile their previous actions. My own experience as detailed in this thread further affirms my belief. I also believe in God, though I have no evidence to support it. That doesn't make my view less valid!

I'd also offer up a further nugget. There is much evidence in the press and elsewhere that banks default position is to deny all PPI claims, and only progress those that appeal. In essence, the bank assumes that every claim has been sent by a liar, until proven otherwise. We should remember at this point that the customer hasn't done anything wrong, while conversely the bank has (at least for some customers), but for some reason it is okay for the bank to initially contend that the customer is the party who is not telling the truth. What a bizarre world we live in

Many thanks for your input.