Obudsman turns down PPI on their assumptions.

Space_Junk

I have reclaimed PPI from other banks successfully but had a problem with Barclaycard, they refused to send out a form then turned down my claim for PPI.
I went to the next level. The Ombusdman took months and months to get to the case and I stated the facts as i saw them.

I first took my Barclaycard out at the age of 20. I took the card out in branch and the form was completed by the clerk. I recall asking about the insurance and he said it was to cover the bank's risk as I was young. I just signed the form to get the card and was never explained the full terms of the insurance. Also at this time I was still on my probation of work.
Years later I was made redundant twice and never claimed as I thought it was to cover the bank not me.
Years after that with the publicity I cancelled the PPI in 2008 as I was self employed and it was not applicable.

The ombudsman struck me as too busy and looking to decline applications as fast as possible. All of my statements have been upheld with other banks. The Obudsman stated that they assumed there was other reasons why I did not claim after being made redundant and the fact of being in probation period when the PPI first started was ignored as I had been in steady employment before…… This was the 90's when the economy was being hammered!

I declined the ombudsman decision as I have a feeling the ombudsman will be called to account over there lack of interest in the facts. I was always told to assume makes an **se of you and me.

At this time the only recourse now is via the courts that is not recommended on any forums. Interested in all comments. Thankyou for reading.

dunstonh

I first took my Barclaycard out at the age of 20. I took the card out in branch and the form was completed by the clerk. I recall asking about the insurance and he said it was to cover the bank's risk as I was young. I just signed the form to get the card and was never explained the full terms of the insurance. Also at this time I was still on my probation of work.
Years later I was made redundant twice and never claimed as I thought it was to cover the bank not me.
Years after that with the publicity I cancelled the PPI in 2008 as I was self employed and it was not applicable.

So, nothing in there which is a valid mis-sale reason.

I declined the ombudsman decision as I have a feeling the ombudsman will be called to account over there lack of interest in the facts. I was always told to assume makes an **se of you and me.

The ombudsman has to make some assumptions when there is no evidence to the support the allegations. They have a slightly more consumer friendly bias to areas of no evidence than the courts. There has to be something in the evidence or background to suggest what you are saying is likely to be the the reason. There appears to be nothing.

All of my statements have been upheld with other banks.

Irrelevant. They could be auto payouts for all we know. They are also not going to have the same audit trails or sales processes as Barclaycard. You havent actually given a valid mis-sale reason in your post. You may have one but failed to mention it but based on what you have written, there doesnt appear to be any wrongdoing.

Space_Junk

I appreciate your view, however the credit card company lied when they told me the PPI was compulsory and I was still on probation at that time. They failed to explain the policy otherwise I would have claimed years later. I never made any claim at all.

The ombudsman assuming that I had other reasons for not claiming on a insurance policy that I was entitled to sounds bonkers. If you smash your car will you make a claim?

I think the bank lied to me and many other people to get commissions.

[Deleted User]

Space_Junk wrote: »

I have a feeling the ombudsman will be called to account over there lack of interest in the facts.

Called to account by whom? They are the regulator!

If you go to court with this it's likely going to be very expensive for you. You don't appear to have a valid complaint and all your accusations are hearsay for which you can provide no evidence which would be required in court.

If I were you, I would be content with your other wins- they have no bearing on the outcome of this case, however.

Once your appeal is inevitably rejected I'd forget all about this one.

dunstonh

however the credit card company lied when they told me the PPI was compulsory

And your evidence for that is what?

They failed to explain the policy otherwise I would have claimed years later.

And your evidence for that?

I think the bank lied to me and many other people to get commissions.

Bank staff were not on commissions. They had targets but not commissions. However, what evidence do you have that the person that sold it to you lied to you and was paid a commission that distorted their views?

You could be right. You could be telling lies (many PPI complaints do). The problem is evidence. They cannot just accept you are telling the truth. The evidence has to point to some wrongdoing and you appear to have nothing more than unprovable allegations. And that is your problem.

Space_Junk

Evidence, I had evidence I was made redundant twice and never claimed. And I have evidence that I never made a claim on PPI.

And I have black and white evidence that I was on probation on the application. It stated 4 months.

I know the banks lied, and i except this is a case I cannot win. But the banks lied back then to get sales. I do not know how they were paid back in the early nineties, but the incentive must of been good enough to lie to customers in a Barclays Branch.

Space_Junk

Would be good to hear from Barclays Bank staff in Branch around early nineties? Would like to hear your interpretation of my experience. This is not a lie and has happened. Just want to make sure we can hold Barclays to account for other customers!!!!

dunstonh

Evidence, I had evidence I was made redundant twice and never claimed

That is not evidence of anything other than the fact you did not claim. There could be a number of reasons for that.

And I have black and white evidence that I was on probation on the application. It stated 4 months.

Which verifies you are not mis-sold on that point. You are not covered for redundancy in the first 6 months of a policy being bought (times vary with providers but 6 months is most typical). So, the probation would have run out before you qualified on the policy. So, no mis-sale on that point.

I know the banks lied, and i except this is a case I cannot win. But the banks lied back then to get sales. I do not know how they were paid back in the early nineties, but the incentive must of been good enough to lie to customers in a Barclays Branch.

As I said, you may be right. However, evidence is needed to back up allegations. Bank staff had the incentive of sell or lose your job. Management pressure was by far the biggest issue.

Would be good to hear from Barclays Bank staff in Branch around early nineties? Would like to hear your interpretation of my experience. This is not a lie and has happened. Just want to make sure we can hold Barclays to account for other customers!!!!

It wont help you. One barclays staff member could have mis-sold every case they did. The person sitting next to them may not have mis-sold a single case. Just because some were does not mean all were. Each case is looked at on its own merits.

Try-it-on consumers havent helped trust. Many firms are reporting over half the complaints they get on PPi dont even have PPI. However, that has not stopped those people making all sorts of allegations similar to yours. hence why evidence is important.

The banks are being held to account. Look at the amounts they are paying back and the fact they have had to kill off their salesforces and change their distribution methods which will significantly hit their profits in future.

[Deleted User]

Space_Junk wrote: »

Evidence, I had evidence I was made redundant twice and never claimed. And I have evidence that I never made a claim on PPI.

This is not "evidence" of any wrong doing by the bank.

Space_Junk wrote: »

And I have black and white evidence that I was on probation on the application. It stated 4 months.

Again, this would not have prevented you claiming on the insurance in the future as long as you had then passed your probationary period!

Space_Junk wrote: »

I know the banks lied, and i except this is a case I cannot win.

I'm glad you realise this, since both the Bank and the Ombudsman have already rejected your complaint.

Space_Junk wrote: »

Just want to make sure we can hold Barclays to account for other customers

No member of Barclays staff (then or now) is ever likely to comment on a public forum.

However, I think you'll find Barclays is definitely being "held to account" for the mis-selling fiasco.

To the tune of £4.85 billion!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5027990

You just aren't one of the beneficiaries this time.

Space_Junk

Easiest way would be polygraph test…. I would prove my case then. Banks did lie and if they had the chance they would do it again.

HSBC put PPI on a loan when I banked with them as a self employed business man.. All banks are crooks,,, bring back the bank of dave.

[Deleted User]

Space_Junk wrote: »

Easiest way would be polygraph test…. I would prove my case then.

Oh please...:eek: