Ppi claim defended

Stupid_Question

Tink98 wrote: »

No sufficient evidence , I just don't get it when I supplied the same as the one that they proved to be missold . Surely they must know what sales pitch were being given to customers at this time .

Do you mean they have said you have provided insufficient evidence, or that they hold insufficient evidence?

If it's the latter then unless you have evidence of the policy existing, there's nothing you can do.

If it's the former then it's down to what you've written. The sales wouldn't have been identical, so your complaint reasons can't be. If you've misremembered details and they have conflicting evidence it'd be rejected - where your circumstances identical?

With such a weak complaint reason the uphold either points to an auto payout, or an incomplete file.

Insider101

Tink98 wrote: »

But there is no evidence it wasn't if it was a phone call is there? And the fact one has been proven missold with the same amount of evidence sort of suggests they are trying to fob me off surely.

How much did they offer you for the one they offered on?

What you've got to bear in mind is that it's not a case of anything having been "proven", which would be virtually impossible in this instance. However, there may have been other considerations which led to you being made an offer for reasons other than those you originally gave.

Tink98

The reason was they still not found sufficient evidence. I was told the same when I took out both loans that the application wasn't likely to be processed without ppi .

Tink98

Insider101 wrote: »

How much did they offer you for the one they offered on?

What you've got to bear in mind is that it's not a case of anything having been "proven", which would be virtually impossible in this instance. However, there may have been other considerations which led to you being made an offer for reasons other than those you originally gave.

I wasn't given any reason . My argument is its impossible to prove it wasn't either , they will no the tactics they used to sell ppi at this time which was 2004.

Stupid_Question

Tink98 wrote: »

The reason was they still not found sufficient evidence. I was told the same when I took out both loans that the application wasn't likely to be processed without ppi .

As i said above, it points to either an auto payout (upheld without investigation) or they have an incomplete file (unlikely to be able to defend an Ombudsman complaint)

Remember, at no point was the PPI mandatory, they will have a document you've signed stating you wanted to buy it, and that it was optional, this is why your complaint is weak.

If you answer these questions, we can potentially advise you better:

Where your circumstances IDENTICAL at each sale?

Was the second loan a consolidation of the previous loan? (i.e you approached the bank for more funds, they paid off your loan and lent you more money)

How much were the loans for?

Tink98

But circumstances don't come into it , and no one would be missold then as everyone signs?? RBS don't offer auto payouts

It's the first loan that won't pay out

I was younger for first loan so was in mine and my dad's name

Both loans 5,000

Insider101

Tink98 wrote: »

I wasn't given any reason . My argument is its impossible to prove it wasn't either , they will no the tactics they used to sell ppi at this time which was 2004.

This is exactly your problem. It will be written down in all their procedures that PPI was an entirely optional product. They will have compliance visits, spot checks, mystery shopper exercises to check whether people were following the process. They will have records of members of staff who didn't do so being retrained or disciplined. It might be that the person who sold you one policy was known to be someone who didn't always play by the rules whereas the other one had a good record.

They'll never tell you why they uphold a complaint anyway. But in the absence of proof either way they need to work out what they think the most likely sequence of events was in that instance.

Stupid_Question

Tink98 wrote: »

But circumstances don't come into it , and no one would be missold then as everyone signs?? RBS don't offer auto payouts

It's the first loan that won't pay out

I was younger for first loan so was in mine and my dad's name

Both loans 5,000

Of course your circumstances come into it! If your circumstances make the policy wholly unsuitable then the policy would be mis sold.

If your circumstances changed between the loans and you've put the same information for both complaints and they have evidence you're not being truthful then they'll be able to reject.

If the loan was joint with your dad are you sure the policy is even in your name?

Either write back to them with a better reason than you have done, escalate your complaint to the FOS, or just accept that you weren't mis sold and move on.

If you struggle to articulate your complaint reasons set the emotions aside and bullet point why you're now unhappy with the policy, what happened during the sale, and why you feel the policy was unsuitable.

[Deleted User]

Tink98 wrote: »

But circumstances don't come into it ,

Certainly do.

Tink98 wrote: »

no one would be missold then as everyone signs??

Not true, verifiable reasons trump hearsay complaints every time.

Tink98 wrote: »

RBS don't offer auto payouts

Certainly do.

Tink98 wrote: »

It's the first loan that won't pay out

So you told us.

Both loans 5,000

Loan amount is irrelevant, PPI amount AND INTEREST is key.

Tink98 wrote: »

one has been proven missold with the same amount of evidence sort of suggests they are trying to fob me off surely.

But one hasn't been "proven" at all, they've just decided to uphold your complaint and you'll never know be told the reason why.

Tink98

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Certainly do. - ppi is optional so how do circumstances come into it



So you told us. - no need to be so rude

Loan amount is irrelevant, PPI amount AND INTEREST is key.

- I was asked the loan amount