MSE News: Two and a half million PPI complaints to be reopened

Alpine_Star

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Alternate view might be that the fact that the cases are to be re-opened means that there is openness and transparency to all this.

However, the report itself is poor because it does not specify exactly why the cases are to be re-opened. Have the banks actually been "caught out" or have they agreed new guidelines with the regulator to be applied retrospectively on (some) recent complaints?

The thematic review spells it out ie it was down to the FCA's intervention and not some new era of ''openness and transparency'' on the part of the banks


''We have looked very closely at these shortcomings and taken action to ensure they were corrected and that relevant approaches, processes and controls were improved. We used robust supervisory discussion with firms to achieve this but also formal methods to seek assurance where necessary (such as commissioning independent reviews of some firms’ PPI complaint handling). Our intensive work with firms has led them to improve their assessments of PPI complaints, and this was reflected in higher uphold rates in later 2013 and to date. As a result of our work, firms have agreed to reassess 2.5m PPI complaints which they rejected (or potentially paid too little redress to) in earlier periods.''

[Deleted User]

Alpine_Star wrote: »

The thematic review spells it out ie it was down to the FCA's intervention and not some new era of ''openness and transparency'' on the part of the banks

Can't argue with that.:)

John_0901

I claimed for mis-sold PPI on a MBNA credit card account last year since I had never requested PPI since this was not needed given my financial circumstances.
After many months of correspondence with MBNA, they finally rejected my claim and provided a photocopy of the credit agreement which had been signed by myself (unfortunately i did not retain a copy myself). The photocopy they provided was of poor quality and it was clear to me that several tick boxes which I had not ticked had subsequently been ticked by others (presumably MBNA staff) to include PPI as required. The tick against PPI requirement is a different stroke type than others on the form which I had made. Has anyone else come across this sort of practice ? Has anyone else pursued MBNA if they had kept a copy themselves of the credit agreement as returned ie. proof that the form had been subsequently altered ? Very grateful for any thoughts or advice on the above. Thanks.

[Deleted User]

John_0901 wrote: »

it was clear to me that several tick boxes which I had not ticked had subsequently been ticked by others (presumably MBNA staff) to include PPI as required. The tick against PPI requirement is a different stroke type than others on the form which I had made.

It was not unusual for banking staff to fill in the ticks before the customer signed. What you are alleging, though, is not simply mis-selling but a criminal offence. You have no evidence of this and your complaint was rejected last year. If you did not refer your complaint to the Ombudsman within six months of your rejection you are now too late to advance this further.

The subject of this thread is the re-opening of some cases because the regulator was not happy with the manner in which they were investigated.

Your case is not covered by this and your complaint is over.

anolls

I asked Barclays to recalculate mine as i felt they had made an error. They advise that they think they made an error too but state that if they overpaid me last time they will ask for it back if they re-investigate.

John_0901

Many thanks for you kind and constructive reply Moneyineptitude to a forum "newbie".
I am fully aware that my PPI complaint with MBNA is over and my original claim was thankfully based on principle only the monies involved being a relatively minor sum.
I have now found "alleged" MBNA credit agreement form alteration comments on posts other websites so it would appear as if I was not alone in receiving this "alleged" form alteration.

[Deleted User]

John_0901 wrote: »

I am fully aware that my PPI complaint with MBNA is over

So why does the original post read as if you plan to try and re-visit it? It was posted to a thread about Banks re-opening cases...

If you have solid evidence that the crime you allege actually happened then you should take the Bank to court and bring the perpetrator to justice. However, if your "evidence" is simply that the ticks on the paperwork were not made by you then I don't think your case has any chance of success.As I said, it was common practice for bank staff to tick the boxes and then get the customer to sign the completed application form. Nothing you have said indicates absolutely that the form was altered after you signed.

As far as a simple mis-selling complaint goes, your complaint was concluded last year and there is nowhere left to progress it.

John_0901

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

So why does the original post read as if you plan to try and re-visit it? It was posted to a thread about Banks re-opening cases...
QUOTE]


I am not of the opinion that my original post reads as if I am going to try to re-visit my case. My post was purely out of interest concerning my experience and perhaps that of others. Its inclusion in this forum is perhaps not the most appropriate forum probably due to the fact that I do not spend my waking hours consumed with writing comments on forums and thereby know exactly where to post this and that.


I am aware that my mistake in not photocopying the credit card agreement before posting to MBNA leaves me with no absolute proof that my application form could have been altered by others afterwards. However, it is clear that the tick against the PPI Yes box is totally different style, length and line thickness than all the other ticks on the form and I distinctly recall that I did not tick this box. Cheers !

Insider101

anolls wrote: »

I asked Barclays to recalculate mine as i felt they had made an error. They advise that they think they made an error too but state that if they overpaid me last time they will ask for it back if they re-investigate.

To which your answer should be "you can ask all you want"!!!

This is one situation where the system is on your side. They made an offer as full and final settlement. You accepted that offer. It's not your fault if they got their sums wrong and they can't compel you to give the money back. On the other hand, if it comes to light that they have under offered you then they are required by FCA rules to make up the difference.

[Deleted User]

John_0901 wrote: »

it is clear that the tick against the PPI Yes box is totally different style, length and line thickness than all the other ticks on the form and I distinctly recall that I did not tick this box.

You keep saying that, but unless you have an original application which is unaltered it's difficult to see how you might progress any further. If your intention was simply to vent your frustration at this, then I sympathise. However, the fact remains that there is nothing you can do about your suspicion that an actual crime was committed during the sale of your PPI.

I have seen several similar observations on the forum over the years, but none where the person or persons responsible have subsequently been convicted of any crime. If anyone ever did bring such a case successfully, I'm certain it would be notoriously well known. A fraud conviction would doubtless result in a custodial sentence!

As I keep reiterating, it was a common practice for bank staff to tick the boxes on behalf of the customer who then signed his or her agreement.