What constitutes missold?

Swoody_2

I had a loan with sainsburys and a credit card. I have never looked into the ppi claim but having spoke to someone at work who said I could claim it back as I get 6 months full sick pay followed by 6 months half sick pay and that would constitute missold.
Before I go claiming anything back is this correct? Would it be missold under these circumstances?

dunstonh

Mis-sold is when someone sold you the PPI incorrectly. If no-one else was involved and you chose to have it or no wrong doing took place then it was not mis-sold.

Insider101

Depends. If the sale took place on an advised basis then there was probably unnecessary duplication and may be grounds for complaint. If it was non advised then what you're saying is in effect that you bought something you now think you shouldn't have. Which many people do every day but is not grounds for complaint against the seller.

DevCoder

6 months sick pay plus 6 months half isn't grounds for mis-sold in my books.

What happens if your illness was > 1 year?

And the PPI would still kick in after its contracted period.

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

Depends. If the sale took place on an advised basis then there was probably unnecessary duplication and may be grounds for complaint. If it was non advised then what you're saying is in effect that you bought something you now think you shouldn't have. Which many people do every day but is not grounds for complaint against the seller.

Not quite.

In a non advised sale, the business still has to present information in a clear, fair and not misleading way. In credit card sales, the cost of PPI versus the actual benefit it provided is one thing which was very often poorly set out - sometimes the cost, benefit or both were not set out at all.

This would mean that the individual would not be able to decide for theirselves whether the policy is something they would benefit from. So, depending on the benefit the policy provides and the person's circumstances (sick pay, savings, other insurance policies etc), it may be found that the policy was not sold properly.

With this in mind, even where no one else was involved in the sale, there are other things which could have gone wrong - and the person with the policy probably won't be aware of it.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

Not quite.

In a non advised sale, the business still has to present information in a clear, fair and not misleading way. In credit card sales, the cost of PPI versus the actual benefit it provided is one thing which was very often poorly set out - sometimes the cost, benefit or both were not set out at all.

This would mean that the individual would not be able to decide for theirselves whether the policy is something they would benefit from. So, depending on the benefit the policy provides and the person's circumstances (sick pay, savings, other insurance policies etc), it may be found that the policy was not sold properly.

With this in mind, even where no one else was involved in the sale, there are other things which could have gone wrong - and the person with the policy probably won't be aware of it.

Incorrect. The clear, fair & not misleading thing has only been a requirement since FCA regulation in 2005. Most PPI was sold before this date. Also, in specific reference to credit cards most were taken out on a distance basis by post or by internet. The only real requirement of the firm was to send the terms & conditions. If the buyer wanted more information it was a case of needing to ask for it.

It's like if I go into a shop to buy a new laptop. If I'm not sure whether the features are right for me I need to ask to get more information. Employer and other benefits are utterly irrelevant on non advised sales, that is the whole point of it, the buyer decides whether it's right for them not the firm. Them making a bad decision does not amount to being missold the product. Unfortunately, FOS will usually find some pretext to uphold the complaint anyway.

roonaldo

Insider101 wrote: »

Incorrect. The clear, fair & not misleading thing has only been a requirement since FCA regulation in 2005. .

Not quite again, the GISC handbook (which I still have) bangs on about clear, fair and not misleading. However may not apply depending on dates and if they subscribed to the voluntary code or not (which the big banks did).

Insider101

roonaldo wrote: »

Not quite again, the GISC handbook (which I still have) bangs on about clear, fair and not misleading. However may not apply depending on dates and if they subscribed to the voluntary code or not (which the big banks did).

The GISC code is voluntary not a mandatory requirement and as you said not everyone subscribed to it. This has drifted away from the original point in any case, which was that making a bad purchase decision and regretting it is not grounds for complaint.

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

Incorrect. The clear, fair & not misleading thing has only been a requirement since FCA regulation in 2005. Most PPI was sold before this date. Also, in specific reference to credit cards most were taken out on a distance basis by post or by internet. The only real requirement of the firm was to send the terms & conditions. If the buyer wanted more information it was a case of needing to ask for it.

It's like if I go into a shop to buy a new laptop. If I'm not sure whether the features are right for me I need to ask to get more information. Employer and other benefits are utterly irrelevant on non advised sales, that is the whole point of it, the buyer decides whether it's right for them not the firm. Them making a bad decision does not amount to being missold the product. Unfortunately, FOS will usually find some pretext to uphold the complaint anyway.

The 2011 court case confirmed that applying the Principles (which include the clear, fair & not mis-leading aspect) in all complaints (even those prior to 2005) is the correct approach.

As such, this is the approach FOS takes - as per their website. If you check the database of decisions, you'll find plenty of non-advised postal sales which have upheld on the basis of a failure to provide proper information. For example, here's a 1994 postal sale of a credit card:

FOS wrote:

I am persuaded that it is more likely than not that the sale was a non-advised sale [...] I have next considered whether HFC Bank gave Mr N information that was clear, fair and not misleading [...] I consider that the information HFC Bank provided to Mr N in relation to the cost and benefits of the policy was insufficiently clear [...] Mr N benefitted from sick pay provided by his employer, of six months full pay followed by six months half pay [...] I consider it more likely than not, that had clearer information on the cost and benefits of the policy been provided to Mr N, he would not have proceeded to purchase the PPI policy [...] It follows that I uphold this complaint.


(Earlier on in the decision, it is pointed out that the consumer would have been sent an application form and a policy document.)

Now whether or not you agree with that approach is neither here nor there really. The fact is that its the approach taken so it is wrong advice to give the OP that his complaint points are not valid by virtue that this was a non advised sale.

-taff

Swoody wrote: »

Would it be missold under these circumstances?

If you bought online or via post, probably not because it was a non-advised sale.


If you bought it from a salesperson, they should have asked you about any benefits you may have had that meant you didn't need the PPI.
Or if you had savings that could have paid the loan if you needed to. Or if it was single premium. Or if you had health issues that meant it wouldn't pay out. Or if you were self employed and the T&Cs were too onerous to make a claim.
If any of these ^ apply, make a complaint.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

The 2011 court case confirmed that applying the Principles (which include the clear, fair & not mis-leading aspect) in all complaints (even those prior to 2005) is the correct approach.

As such, this is the approach FOS takes - as per their website. If you check the database of decisions, you'll find plenty of non-advised postal sales which have upheld on the basis of a failure to provide proper information. For example, here's a 1994 postal sale of a credit card:



Now whether or not you agree with that approach is neither here nor there really. The fact is that its the approach taken so it is wrong advice to give the OP that his complaint points are not valid by virtue that this was a non advised sale.

Since you mention it yes, the 2011 court case was a legal abomination which owed more to political pressure and motivations than what was legally correct. However, that's not the point.

If you read the common failings listed in DISP APP 3.6.2 (which was the subject of the court case) it states "did not (FOR AN ADVISED SALE) take reasonable care to ensure the policy was suitable..." Fairly clear that this is not a requirement for a non advised sale. You would have to rely on other failings with the sale. We can't know in this instance whether there were any other failings with the sale as the OP has not given any grounds for complaint other than that he already had sick pay. There may have been, but we can't know that.

As for FOS, their decisions lack consistency in my experience and are usually based around template letters which show little understanding of the circumstances of the complaint. In the case of HFC it may well be that there were flaws and omissions in the terms & conditions documents provided which persuaded them towards that conclusion. In this case we don't have sufficient information to make that judgement. But my original point was that JUST saying you had existing cover when the sale was non advised is not by itself a sales failing on the part of the firm. Which is confirmed by DISP APP 3.

Right now back to Holland v Argentina!!!