PPI claim, Natwest creditguard

g97e04

Hello,
I am trying to reclaim some PPI which I feel I may be entitled to.
I recently submitted a letter to the Royal Bank of Scotland regarding my PPI claim.
In October 1989 I applied for a Nat West Visa card and used it until January 2007 (RBS now owns NatWest).
During this period I was paying for a feature called Creditguard which was a PPI type payment that varied with the balance on my Visa card.
Last week I received a telephone call from RBS and had to answer a few security questions and then some other questions about when and how I applied for the card, what was my employment status at the time and if I had any other means of making payment if I was to fall ill. I answered these and was told that I would receive a decision in due course.
Yesterday I received a letter from RBS stating that the PPI in this case was fairly sold and that my complaint would be upheld.
They say that the policy would have been provided on a ‘non advice’ basis which means that no recommendation would have been made as to whether the policy was suitable for me. Also there was no requirement for the bank to assess my circumstances, demands and needs, medical condition or whether I had any existing cover. They go on to say that it was my responsibility to be aware of any existing policies and what they provided in order to assess the suitability of this product in relation to my needs. It also stated that details were set out in the Certificate of Insurance that would have been provided after the policy had been purchased, to confirm that the policy was in force and that i did have a 14 day ‘cooling off’ period.
They also enclosed 2 statements and drew my attention to the fact that the Creditguard was a separate cost and that I must have been aware of the cover.
This all seems like a ‘fobbing off’ to me, and their letter seems to be contrary at times.
I still believe that they were negligent in their selling of the product to me and to say that it was my responsibility is not good enough. I must have felt that it gave me some form of protection, even though as it now transpires that I did not need it, surely they as the bank are in a better position to determine whether or not I required this product. They knew my employment status and my financial status.
Yes it was visible on my statements but all that proves is that I was paying for 17 years for something that I did not need.
Please can someone tell me if I have a valid case to put forward to the financial ombudsman.

-taff

No one knows.
Based on what you have said, no.
Based on what the ombudsman adjudicator might find, who knows.

It's the only avenue left to you so the choice is yours.

[Deleted User]

g97e04 wrote: »

This all seems like a ‘fobbing off’ to me, and their letter seems to be contrary at times.I still believe that they were negligent in their selling of the product to me and to say that it was my responsibility is not good enough.

I don't see how you've been "fobbed off", the letter seems to comprehensively debunk your complaint.
If you remain aggrieved, you can forward your complaint to the Ombudsman-but there are no guarantees you will be successful and the process takes in excess of eighteen months..

dunstonh

They say that the policy would have been provided on a ‘non advice’ basis which means that no recommendation would have been made as to whether the policy was suitable for me. Also there was no requirement for the bank to assess my circumstances, demands and needs, medical condition or whether I had any existing cover.

That is correct for non-advised sales. There is a higher standard for advised (and lower for non-advised)

This all seems like a ‘fobbing off’ to me, and their letter seems to be contrary at times.

Technically, what they are saying is correct.

I still believe that they were negligent in their selling of the product to me and to say that it was my responsibility is not good enough.

It is your responsibility on non-advised sales.

surely they as the bank are in a better position to determine whether or not I required this product. They knew my employment status and my financial status.

Whether they did or didnt doesnt matter on non-advised sales.

Yes it was visible on my statements but all that proves is that I was paying for 17 years for something that I did not need.

What it proves is that for 17 years, you had did not complain about what you had and must have known you had it.

Please can someone tell me if I have a valid case to put forward to the financial ombudsman.

Like answers above, you appear to have been given the technically correct response to what appears to be a very weak complaint. We dont have the benefit of seeing the audit trail but based solely one what you have said about your complaint and their response, then it does seem a fair and correct rejection. However, the FOS may feel differently if there is evidence to the contrary that we do not have access to or that you havent mentioned.