RBS defended claim

mikepoole

I had a credit card with Nat West from October 2000. I have recently been pursuing a PPI claim which has now been investigated and "defender" by RBS

I want to just check that their reasons are valid and that there is no point me following up with the FOS (I appreciate nto everyone is entitled to a refund)

On the statements from 2001 they sent me, I had amounts against "CREDIT CARD REPAYMENT PROTECTOR" - the covering letter then talks about "The Payment Protection Insurance Policy was optional, the Credit Card and the Payment Protection Insurance Policy were separate products and separate transactions.

This is confusing me. Are these 2 completely separate things?

They are rejecting my claim on the basis that the amounts appeared on my statements and "it is therefore reasonable to assume that you knew that the Payment Protection Insurance existed and that you were happy for the cover to continue"

Do I have any reason to complain to the FOS?

Many thanks

Mike

dunstonh

RBS defended claim

Or to put it correctly, they have rejected the complaint.

On the statements from 2001 they sent me, I had amounts against "CREDIT CARD REPAYMENT PROTECTOR" - the covering letter then talks about "The Payment Protection Insurance Policy was optional, the Credit Card and the Payment Protection Insurance Policy were separate products and separate transactions.

It is saying that that it was option and the is a separate product and paid with individual payments. That sort of response is given typically where a badly worded template letter is used (i.e. using loan PPI complaint reasons for credit card PPI - loan PPI being built into the product as a single premium but credit card being monthly payment)

They are rejecting my claim on the basis that the amounts appeared on my statements and "it is therefore reasonable to assume that you knew that the Payment Protection Insurance existed and that you were happy for the cover to continue"

That is a statement of fact. Not sure it is a rejection reason in itself but it would depend on your reasons for complaint. If your complaint was "I didnt know i had it" then that could be the reason for their response.

Do I have any reason to complain to the FOS?

We need to know your reasons for complaint and if you have any evidence to support them?

mikepoole

Thanks dunstonh

My reasons for complaint were that I was unaware I had the policy/policies. So presumably as they could provide the credit card statements showing the amounts (I was not the best for checking, just payed them off each month), they are entitled to reject my complaint?

dunstonh

My reasons for complaint were that I was unaware I had the policy/policies.

Ok. A very weak complaint. You cant prove you were not aware and they can produce statements that show you were told every month.

Do you have a stronger complaint reason or is that just it?

mikepoole

The only other thing would be that my circumstances at the time re: employment would have meant the payment protection insurance was not required (I was self-employed/director)

[Deleted User]

mikepoole wrote: »

My reasons for complaint were that I was unaware I had the policy/policies.

If you held the card from 2000 then you will have had at least 156 monthly statements since that time showing the PPI payments (card protector).
It's a myth fostered by claims companies that PPI was routinely added by Banks without the Knowledge and permission of the customer. If you have PPI and apparently don't know it then you've either forgotten (usually in the case of loans where it can be added to the repayments) or you simply never checked credit card statements.

Your complaint was therefore utterly weak, I'm afraid.

[Deleted User]

mikepoole wrote: »

my circumstances at the time re: employment would have meant the payment protection insurance was not required (I was self-employed/director)

That's better, but how did the Bank respond to this aspect of your complaint?
Did you apply for the card and PPI online perhaps?

mikepoole

I applied for the card within the branch when I opened a new NW account

Their cover letter stated "as you were aged 30, in full time employment and the principal crad holder" - I was a company directory (and therefore employee) - would the bank consider this "full time employment"?

dunstonh

mikepoole wrote: »

I applied for the card within the branch when I opened a new NW account

Their cover letter stated "as you were aged 30, in full time employment and the principal crad holder" - I was a company directory (and therefore employee) - would the bank consider this "full time employment"?

Did they know you were a company director (as in the member of staff who set it up for you, not some different member of staff who may deal with the business). There are often restrictions for company directors. Sometimes these restrictions are too much in the eyes of the FOS and they will uphold the complaint.

So, although you are not self employed, you may have similar issues that occur with some types of PPI. Go back to the bank and make sure they are aware that you were a company director at the time and you feel this would not have covered you. (they may say it does and some do but its the next thing for you to do)

antrobus

mikepoole wrote: »

....Their cover letter stated "as you were aged 30, in full time employment and the principal crad holder" - I was a company directory (and therefore employee) - would the bank consider this "full time employment"?

Yes. Being a company directory means that you were employed.

mikepoole

antrobus wrote: »

Yes. Being a company directory means that you were employed.

LOL. Sorry - meant to say director. :-)

So really I have no reason to progress my complaint via the FOS?