Capital One / Ombudsman PPI

Fredtaylor71

*Sorry if I have posted in the wrong place*

Looking for some help or advice.

We took out a Credit Card with Capital One in 1999, and when applying for the card we did NOT tick the box for payment protect. We got a phone call from Capital One a little while after the card arrived and we had used it a bit, saying in the phone call that we HAD to take out the PPI as it was part of their policy to do so, and if we never took it out the card would be cancelled at once and we would have to the pay the balance there and then to them.

The card was in my wives name alone, as at the time I was not working and my wife worked part time in a school as a dinner lady and we was in no way able to pay the balance straightway as they demanded, so had very little choice but to take the PPI.

We asked Capital One to review this last year, which they did and said they had acted correctly and would not refund the PPI payments, they sent us document we completed to apply for the card clearly showing we never tick the box, and policy documents stating we had time to cancel the PPI at the time it was sold to us, as I said it was forcefully sold so there was not much point we thought cancelling it as they would only then force us to repay the balance.

We forward all of this off to the Ombudsman with or complaint and reasons for the complaint which was the fact it was forcefully sold to us against our wishes, because if we wanted it we would of ticked the box. Plus the sales person as refusing to take no for an answer, and giving us no option but to take it out.

The Ombudsman has now sent us a letter and spoke to us on the phone saying they are not upholding our complaint because they have no evidence that we where forced into taking out the policy, and stated its a subjective area, and they need evidence such as a recorded phone call to prove it was forcefully sold. I doubt recording where used in the late 90's, the Ombudsman said they have sale scripts from Capital One from that time. I know for sure they where not the same sales script used when phoning us.

The Ombudsman said in the phone call they had to take a balanced view of who was to deem as being more likely to be telling the truth us or Capital One, which I asked him but he refused to answer how many other complaints against Capital One from around the same period where for forcefully selling PPI and I again doubt ours is the only complaint of its kind.

I am going to ask for a review of this complaint, and looking now for anyone that can point me in the right direction to finding more facts and figures to show the Ombudsman that the probability that forcefully selling of PPI by Capital One was happening and that others have had their cases upheld..

Thank you

dunstonh

but he refused to answer how many other complaints against Capital One from around the same period where for forcefully selling PPI and I again doubt ours is the only complaint of its kind.

It doesnt matter what others complain about. You spoke to one person out of hundreds, maybe thousands over the years. That person may never have mis-sold a thing in their life. The person sitting next to them answering calls may have mis-sold every case. You cannot blame everyone for the actions of a few. The FOS publish stats on complaints and they show that most complaints against Cap One are rejected (only around 10%-25% get upheld depending on the monitoring period you are looking at).

I am going to ask for a review of this complaint, and looking now for anyone that can point me in the right direction to finding more facts and figures to show the Ombudsman that the probability that forcefully selling of PPI by Capital One was happening and that others have had their cases upheld..

Unfortunately, the stats work against you.

Plus, most allegations without evidence do fail. They cannot believe you any more than they can believe them. Credibility does come into play. A consumer using a template letter containing false reasons that can be shown to be wrong loses credibility. However, a firm saying one thing but producing documents saying another loses them credibility. Where there is no evidence of wrongdoing and you were eligible to claim on the policy, you would expect to be rejected.

Did you know that half of PPI complaints stating all sorts of wrongdoing about PPI and how it was sold do not even have PPI. This is the sort of problem that they have to deal with. The consumer is no more trustworthy than the firms. Indeed, if you wanted to go by stats, given that half of consumer complaints on PPI are false and only a quarter of PPI complaints are upheld by the FOS, the balance of probability lies with Cap one. However, that doesnt come into it just as what you are asking for doesnt.

[Deleted User]

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

the fact it was forcefully sold to us against our wishes

But this isn't "fact" it's an unsubstantiated allegation for which you cannot provide any evidence. How can it have been "forcefully" sold to you "against your wishes"? I doubt they were holding a gun to your head when you signed the agreement!

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

The Ombudsman has now sent us a letter and spoke to us on the phone saying they are not upholding our complaint because they have no evidence that we where forced into taking out the policy

Which is as expected with a "hearsay" complaint like yours.

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

Ombudsman said they have sale scripts from Capital One from that time. I know for sure they where not the same sales script used when phoning us.

In the absence of any actual recordings, FOS have to accept the Sales Script bank staff were trained to use at the time. Do you really think they would accept your account alone of a conversation which took place 14 years ago as the sole grounds for ruling in your favour?

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

he refused to answer how many other complaints against Capital One from around the same period where for forcefully selling PPI and I again doubt ours is the only complaint of its kind.

Why do you keep using the word "forcefully"? Do you perhaps mean "aggressively"?
Other complaints against that particular bank are irrelevant to yours.

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

I am going to ask for a review of this complaint

This will take many months with the outcome very unlikely to go in your favour.

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

and looking now for anyone that can point me in the right direction to finding more facts and figures to show the Ombudsman that the probability that forcefully selling of PPI by Capital One was happening

There is no point looking for successful complaints to present to the Ombudsman. Banks don't actually detail the reasons they uphold complaints in their offer letters. In many cases the reasons given in the complaint have very little to do with the reasons the complaint is upheld. You need to have evidence for your own complaint.

Fredtaylor71

Thanks for both replies really put me in my place and made me feel at fault, and to feel like I'm making a false claim against Capital One.

[Deleted User]

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

Thanks for both replies really put me in my place and made me feel at fault, and to feel like I'm making a false claim against Capital One.

The intention is just to put you straight that unsubstantiated allegations don't (usually) result in a refund of PPI unless some other fault is found with the sale. You had a weak complaint which both the Bank and now the Ombudsman have unsurprisingly rejected. No one said what you alleged was "false", just that you could provide no evidence of it.

You can go down your intended path of seeking "evidence" to present to the Ombudsman, but you are very unlikely to be successful and it will take many many more months to reach that stage.

dunstonh

Fredtaylor71 wrote: »

Thanks for both replies really put me in my place and made me feel at fault, and to feel like I'm making a false claim against Capital One.

I certainly didnt intend you to feel at fault. My intention was to point our your issues and why you got that income and why what you want isnt going to help.

You may have been told all those things. You may have misheard. Your memory may not be great or you could be making it up. That is the problem. You have no evidence to support your allegation. There are consumers falling into all of those categories making complaints like yours.

The adjudicator response is the correct one based on what you have told us. So, if you are going to ask an ombudsman to overrule the adjudicator (which is unusual for them to do so), you need to explain why you feel the adjudicator is wrong. You dont appear to have anything new to supply to show why they adjudicator was wrong.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

given that half of consumer complaints on PPI are false and only a quarter of PPI complaints are upheld by the FOS, the balance of probability lies with Cap one. However, that doesnt come into it just as what you are asking for doesnt.

I thought the uphold rate was much higher than a quarter? And I didn't think there was any stats on 'false claims'?

OP: The argument you ran will always be a hard one to win - in the absence of supporting evidence. It is not so much that you are not to be believed - but that a decision has to be made as to what was most likely to have happened. So where Capital One was able to supply some information (the call script) and you could only give recollections (which I'd imagine were vague) of a fairly minor event which happened 15 years ago... well, there was only going to be one winner.

That's not to say you are telling lies or making things up - what you have said could have happened: the Ombudsman has upheld similar complaints to yours previously, though in these Capital One did not supply any evidence RE: the phone call. Call scripts are all well and good, but who knows if it was followed? There is a chance it wasn't - but FOS can't uphold a complaint on a 'chance' of something having happened.

[Deleted User]

WatchMan wrote: »

I didn't think there was any stats on 'false claims'?

Where there was no PPI at all there are statistics, certainly. For other "false" claims it is not so black and white and so no stats are available.

WatchMan wrote: »

well, there was only going to be one winner.

I think the OP has already received this message.

WatchMan

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

He's talking about FOS uphold rates, not the overall total.

For PPI, the uphold rate is 65% according to the latest figures - so I am not sure where the quarter figure comes from?

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Where there was no PPI at all there are statistics, certainly. For other "false" claims it is not so black and white and so no stats are available.

That's what I understood the situation to be, yes.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I think the OP has already received this message.

I rather thought there was more to my post than that one line.

dunstonh

I thought the uphold rate was much higher than a quarter? And I didn't think there was any stats on 'false claims'?

I was referring to the Cap One uphold rate which is one of the lowest there is. I referred to it in #2. I just checked the latest stats which show 18% for PPI in the last period.

For other "false" claims it is not so black and white and so no stats are available.

There are no official stats as its not something that gets recorded. However, a number of firms that retailed PPI have said that figures in excess of or around half have not actually had PPI.

[Deleted User]

WatchMan wrote: »

I rather thought there was more to my post than that one line.

My point was that you were rather reiterating what's been said already. I don't think the OP needs any more confirmation of that sad fact.