Bank of Scotland Credit Card Online App in 2005

[Deleted User]

scottishlass21 wrote: »

You are coming across as arrogant within a forum that is created for advice and direction.

This is a discussion forum, not a support forum. You asked about a rejected PPI complaint and I gave you my opinion.

scottishlass21 wrote: »

Making words bold and in capitals highlights this as I'm sure this isn't essential when replying.

Bolding words for emphasis was only necessary because you appeared to have misunderstood what I said. Even now, I'm not sure you are fully comprehending the responses I have given.

scottishlass21 wrote: »

Does it really matter who gets the screenshots as long as they can be retrieved from that long ago?

Of course it matters.
If you had been able to get evidence that you were mis-sold prior to complaint then you would not now be facing an eighteen month wait for FOS to adjudicate. Sending evidence to support complaints does indeed matter.
You did not send the Bank any evidence.
The evidence the Bank will send to FOS will support it's own decision and so is very unlikely to indicate that they are mistaken. Remember that the Banks read the FOS website as avidly as complainants, they have long since learned that pre-ticked boxes are not acceptable and would have already upheld your complaint had this been the case.

-taff

But it's still possible another fault may be found since the FOS are more for the consumer and not for the companies that lend credit.
You'd be better off sending it to the FOS rather than going back to the bank too. They only have to investigate if there is new evidence and you don't have any.

scottishlass21

Is it you that is misunderstanding, did I say SUPPORT? Your responses are not hard to comprehend however unnecessary they are.

The evidence is the evidence no matter who's hand it is in.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

scottishlass21

Taff, I really appreciate your more civilised approach to this thread. It's a very welcome addition, thank you.

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

But it's still possible another fault may be found since the FOS are more for the consumer and not for the companies that lend credit.

I don't deny that, but you know as well as I do that online sales are generally not deemed mis-sold other than in the circumstances already discussed.

-taff wrote: »

You'd be better off sending it to the FOS rather than going back to the bank too. They ( the bank) only have to investigate if there is new evidence and you don't have any.

Yes, any approach to the Bank will just result in a reiteration of their "full and final" response and the OP will be just delaying an inevitable FOS referral.

-taff

Yes I know. I also know Egg were sending those responses to people who had had the boxes pre-ticked.
And here's a case study example from the FOS website

"case study 5

We were given screen shots of a policy being taken out over the internet. Although these are usually non-advised sales, one of the screen shots said "we strongly recommend you take out this PPI". We were satisfied from the consumer's account of the sale that he had placed some weight on this - and so we concluded that the sale was advised."

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

And here's a case study example from the FOS website

That case study was already posted in this thread by the OP(#3).

-taff wrote: »

I also know Egg were sending those responses to people who had had the boxes pre-ticked.

Egg have certainly been guilty of this in the past, especially as they were the main users of that particularly unfair feature of some online applications.

Egg were called to book for doing that.

However, no Bank is currently known to be refuting pre-ticked boxes and online applications are generally deemed mis-bought rather than mis-sold.

Regardless, this complaint is against RBS, not Egg.

-taff

Good, then there's every chance they'll get their money back