Natwest/RBS Letter

dunstonh

I don't know why any reasonable bank would request a customer to spend £10 to get the answer to a complaint, when the bank already have that information in front of them in order to have decided that complaint.

My interpretation is that the bank have answered the complaint and the poster now wants addition information that is not covered under the complaint process. A complaint doesnt mean you get a free SAR.

Now, if it was found out afterwards that there was PPI and that was mis-sold then I would expect the SAR fee to be refunded and probably an additional inconvenience payment as well.

Atidi

dunstonh wrote: »

My interpretation is that the bank have answered the complaint and the poster now wants addition information that is not covered under the complaint process.

Well I don't think there is any dispute that the bank have given their response to the complaint.

I'm not sure the OP does want more information not covered by the complaint, but if that is the case, then the OP should consider raising a new complaint about that new issue.

As I obviously was not aware of any additional reason for complaint, or request for additional information about something not covered bythe complaint, my response did not refer to that (if it exists)

I think my response to the OP is clear in both the issues it addresses and my advice accordingly

dunstonh wrote: »

A complaint doesnt mean you get a free SAR.

Agreed
I'm sorry if you intrepreted my post in any other way as that was certainly not the intention

dunstonh wrote: »

Now, if it was found out afterwards that there was PPI and that was mis-sold then I would expect the SAR fee to be refunded ...

At the risk of taking this thread off topic, may I ask why?

I am concerned the OP is being encouraged to spend £10 on a SAR that I don't think is necessary, unless I am missing something here.

If the OP is unhappy with the answer to the complaint raised (and assuming this is the final response from the bank or 8 weeks have passed) then I would encourage the OP to ask the FOS to help.

[Deleted User]

Atidi wrote: »

The way I read it is that the bank are actively suggesting the OP sends them £10 for something they already have the information on.

The Bank have told the OP in a "full and final" response that only the first loan had PPI. The OP, on challenging this, was informed that a SAR would "prove" to the OP that this was the information they had. The Bank are not encouraging this, they are stating that it's the only option if the OP does not believe their findings.

The person on the telephone will not be a Bank Complaints handler and call centre operators are not trained to "encourage" complaints. It's therefore reasonable to assume that the OP was not told that there was PPI on all ten loans and that she misunderstood the information imparted.
Only a SAR will prove otherwise.

Atidi wrote: »

If I were the OP, I'd forward the complaint to the FOS. They will ensure they get whatever information the bank used to come to their decision for free

Since such a (very likely) futile course of action would take in excess of 18 months to (again very likely) come to the same conclusion the Bank has, I'd regard this as very poor advice.

If the OP sends a SAR which reveals that the other loans had PPI (very unlikely), then the OP could certainly expect a refund of the £10 cost of the SAR together with additional redress.

Without any documentation or even definite knowledge that there was any PPI on these other loans, the OP has a very weak case to carry forward to the Ombudsman.

dunstonh wrote: »

Now, if it was found out afterwards that there was PPI and that was mis-sold then I would expect the SAR fee to be refunded and probably an additional inconvenience payment as well.

Yes, just as I said above.


I'm pretty sure the poster concerned already had her answer at post #4, subsequent posts are simply a debate about "interpretation" which is what the OP seems to have failed to do correctly both with the initial call and the subsequent complaint.

Atidi

Surely the OP knows whether or not they were paying PPI on loans? :huh:


At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, if no PPI was paid then of course there will be no refund.

Comments in post#1 imply the bank confirmed PPI, which was mis-sold in this case, was payable on all the loans, hence presumably why the OP made the complaint.

Atidi

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

...I'm pretty sure the poster concerned already had her answer at post #4, ...

The OP received your response in post #4.

In post #5 I offered the OP an alternative response.

Can't we just leave it at that? Please?

[Deleted User]

Atidi wrote: »

At the risk of taking this thread off topic, may I ask why?

The Bank have responded, supposedly based on records that show no PPI on nine loans. If the OP now pays £10 for a SAR in order to view the content of those records and subsequently finds that the Bank have made a mistake, then the Bank will pay additional redress and obviously refund the SAR fee.

Atidi wrote: »

Surely the OP knows whether or not they were paying PPI on loans? :huh:

If that was the case, the Op would not have posted about NOT being certain.

As you say, this thread has now been taken way off topic…

[Deleted User]

Moneyineptitude_at_post_#2_of_this_thread wrote: »

If you didn't have any PPI on the other loans then there can be no refund of it.

Atidi_at_post#15_of_this_thread wrote: »

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious, if no PPI was paid then of course there will be no refund.

Seems we do think alike after all