Six months has elapsed since my claim was rejected

solwaymrs

I posted this earlier but can't find it, so trying again.

CapitalOne rejected my claim for PPI charged to my credit card in March 2013. I sent in a new application in Jan 2014 with more grounds for mis-selling which I wasn't aware of at the time of my 1st application. They have rejected this one as well, citing the FOS six month rule. The FOS gives examples of exceptional circumstances by which the 6 month rule can be waived, but none of them relate to lack of information first time round. Articles have come out in the press since my first application which strengthen my case.

Should I write to the FOS or pursue CapitalOne through small claims court?

Many thanks. Hope this gets posted this time:)

Insider101

solwaymrs wrote: »

I posted this earlier but can't find it, so trying again.

CapitalOne rejected my claim for PPI charged to my credit card in March 2013. I sent in a new application in Jan 2014 with more grounds for mis-selling which I wasn't aware of at the time of my 1st application. They have rejected this one as well, citing the FOS six month rule. The FOS gives examples of exceptional circumstances by which the 6 month rule can be waived, but none of them relate to lack of information first time round. Articles have come out in the press since my first application which strengthen my case.

Should I write to the FOS or pursue CapitalOne through small claims court?

Many thanks. Hope this gets posted this time:)

What you have made is not an "application". It is a complaint.

Generally speaking, unless you have a good reason why you could not have been expected to refer to FOS within six months (e.g serious illness), that is generally it.

You can ask Capital One to reconsider if you genuinely think you have other reasons but they are under no obligation to. To be honest when someone comes back months after having a complaint rejected with further reasons it comes across as though they are simply trying another angle because they want the money rather than complaining out of genuine dissatisfaction.

You're unlikely to get very far with court action - what probable legal wrongdoing would you allege?

solwaymrs

Thank you Insider101, points noted.
It seems the onus is on us to provide grounds for mis-selling and although there is a lot of help out there you don't always have the complete picture at the time of filing a complaint. I, for instance, was always told by my accountant I was employed by my Ltd Company even though I am freelance and a one-man band. However, digging deeper and anew into recent articles I find that being employed by someone in your family (ie myself) is a no-no and that to be considered employed you have to be employed by someone else. I didn't know this a year ago and it changes the picture completely.
Let me just add that I sent Lloyds a new complaint last month asking them to reassess in light of new research on above basis and they are willing to do this. I await their decision.
Many thanks again for your input.

Insider101

solwaymrs wrote: »

Thank you Insider101, points noted.
It seems the onus is on us to provide grounds for mis-selling and although there is a lot of help out there you don't always have the complete picture at the time of filing a complaint. I, for instance, was always told by my accountant I was employed by my Ltd Company even though I am freelance and a one-man band. However, digging deeper and anew into recent articles I find that being employed by someone in your family (ie myself) is a no-no and that to be considered employed you have to be employed by someone else. I didn't know this a year ago and it changes the picture completely.
Let me just add that I sent Lloyds a new complaint last month asking them to reassess in light of new research on above basis and they are willing to do this. I await their decision.
Many thanks again for your input.

This will certainly be the case if you go to court. You will have to prove some kind of lawful wrongdoing. FOS is different as they judge on what they consider to be fairness and good practice (a hugely subjective issue) instead of just rules and regulations.

AFAIK with limited companies it depends on how much your ownership is. Often if its over 20% and you are a Director you will be considered to be self employed. If its less then you're just like any other employee shareholder. But each policy has its own rules so you are best checking up on this and getting a copy of the summary if at all possible.