Nationwide ppi rejection - any advice welcome

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

What is this, an exercise in stating the obvious

As safestored says,

safestored4 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what your assumptions are. In law he or she who asserts must prove this to be the case.

I had thought that was obvious until addedvaluebob said

addedvaluebob wrote: »

It is up to the OP to prove it was true'. I have assumed they were being honest when they posted on this forum.

At which point I thought I should reiterate that the OP merely saying what he thought happened at a meeting at which he was not present is not very persuasive.

It is also unclear why the OP has a right to complain about his Dad's policy.

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

As safestored says,

I had thought that was obvious until addedvaluebob said

At which point I thought I should reiterate that the OP merely saying what he thought happened at a meeting at which he was not present is not very persuasive.

It is also unclear why the OP has a right to complain about his Dad's policy.

If they refer it to FOS they have to complete the form and agree to the statement that the information is true and accurate. Unless there is a glaring error or inconsistency then the adjudicator will take this information at face value unless there is something that does not appear to be accurate or the company has a different set of details in their records to refute what the complainant says.

I don't think the OP put in the original complaint without talking to their father for the details of the sale.

Using the 'he who asserts' phrase just puts ordinary people off from pursuing things further because they don't have the paperwork from the time of the sale

dunstonh

If they refer it to FOS they have to complete the form and agree to the statement that the information is true and accurate.

... in their opinion. There is usually four truths to cases like this. What the person thought happened. What the firm thought happened, what actually happened and what the evidence suggests happened.

Unless there is a glaring error or inconsistency then the adjudicator will take this information at face value unless there is something that does not appear to be accurate or the company has a different set of details in their records to refute what the complainant says.

This one doesnt appear to have much in respect of unprovable allegations. The OPs opinion on what may have been said will be disregarded. The FOS would look to see whether it was an advised case or non-advised case. It will then apply the appropriate standard. We know the FOS doesnt consider employer benefits an issue with MPPI as long as the MPPI pays out in addition to employer benefits. Savings are considered on advised cases but not non-advised case. However, the savings have to be significant. We dont know the figure, so we cant offer opinion on that. However, typically you are talking in excess of a number of years income.

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Rocket, you don't need to do anything on here to justify your case.

Without a complete set of details, and I do mean everything from initial correspondence through payslips, details of deposits at the time, contract of employment, amount of savings, monthly household expenditure etc etc etc no one can actually judge your case with any degree of certainty. All you will do is attract criticism.

Do what you think is right, not what anyone on this forum says, you obviously thought there was a case in the first place.

Has the response from Nationwide changed that opinion sufficiently to think it was not mis-sold or has revealed some information that you did not know when you made the complaint

I don't think anyone here is trying to say not to refer the complaint to the FOS - all we are trying to do is point out the argument that Nationwide would make against the referral (and probably why they rejected it in the first place).

If you make a statement that the parents had 18 months sick pay, it is not unreasonable for the bank to ask for proof of that. In addition, detailing if it was 18 months full or 6 months full 12 months half or 6 months full 6 months half 6 months third or whatever is very important - if someone had something nasty that made them unable to work for 18 months then 18 months full pay is an extremely good benefit, if it was 6 months full pay then savings are going to go very quickly so a PPI payout on top of that will be very useful.

Similarly, saying they had a rainy day fund is great but to use it as proof that PPI was not needed you would need to say how much it was and how it related to salary. To one person a rainy day fund could be 2x month salary which might seem a substantial amount, to another they might have a years salary available but consider that to be just sufficient.

As I said in the first reply, there is nothing to worry about sending the complaint to the FOS, just make sure the details are accurate and factual and make it clear what the benefit was and how much the savings were and see what the FOS say.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

If they refer it to FOS they have to complete the form

Except in most cases it is the same form anyway.

Unless there is a glaring error or inconsistency then the adjudicator will take this information at face value

Except that it is the son, not the policyholder that is saying it.

unless there is something that does not appear to be accurate or the company has a different set of details in their records to refute what the complainant says

The mere fact that somebody says something does not mean it is necessarily true and FOS acknowledges that it is difficult for a respondent firm to prove a negative. Obviously, in some cases they can (for example if a disclaimer refusing cover was signed).

I don't think the OP put in the original complaint without talking to their father for the details of the sale.

The OP never said they did - so you are speculating.

Using the 'he who asserts' phrase just puts ordinary people off from pursuing things further because they don't have the paperwork from the time of the sale

It does nothing of the sort. Nationwide was required to check its evidence when the complaint came in and has found none to support the OP's assertions. So unless the OP can produce other evidence in support the likelihood of an overturn at FOS are low.

The OP has said (s)he will try to dig out more paperwork so my response confirms that doing so would be a good idea.

By contrast, your response to simply send it off anyway will not improve their chances.

They are not well served by being told to put a complaint to FOS without a realistic assessment of what might be needed.

I prefer to tell posters what they need to hear rather than what they would like to hear.

Clint163

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Rocket, you don't need to do anything on here to justify your case.

Without a complete set of details, and I do mean everything from initial correspondence through payslips, details of deposits at the time, contract of employment, amount of savings, monthly household expenditure etc etc etc no one can actually judge your case with any degree of certainty. All you will do is attract criticism.

Do what you think is right, not what anyone on this forum says, you obviously thought there was a case in the first place.

Has the response from Nationwide changed that opinion sufficiently to think it was not mis-sold or has revealed some information that you did not know when you made the complaint

I totally agree. I was given nothing but negativity on this forum only to prove them wrong. It cost you nothing to send to the ombudsman and they will not take on a case if they don't think it stands. Regarding MPPI being less likely to pay out that is utter nonsense. Each case differs. I am appalled at some people horrible negativity on this forum.

Clint163

magpiecottage wrote: »

Except in most cases it is the same form anyway.

Except that it is the son, not the policyholder that is saying it.

The mere fact that somebody says something does not mean it is necessarily true and FOS acknowledges that it is difficult for a respondent firm to prove a negative. Obviously, in some cases they can (for example if a disclaimer refusing cover was signed).

The OP never said they did - so you are speculating.

It does nothing of the sort. Nationwide was required to check its evidence when the complaint came in and has found none to support the OP's assertions. So unless the OP can produce other evidence in support the likelihood of an overturn at FOS are low.

The OP has said (s)he will try to dig out more paperwork so my response confirms that doing so would be a good idea.

By contrast, your response to simply send it off anyway will not improve their chances.

They are not well served by being told to put a complaint to FOS without a realistic assessment of what might be needed.

I prefer to tell posters what they need to hear rather than what they would like to hear.

So what foes she have to loose by not going to the FOS? One thing I have learned in forums that some people lack knowledge but to make themselves sound interesting is by giving out negative responses. If you can't give constructive information then please don't give any. Each case referred to the ombudsman is different as well as circumstances they are never two complaints the same.

Clint163

I would certainly take your case to the ombudsman. As long as you give permission by the person claiming the PPI and the ombudsman has this permission they will deal directly with the son. Each circumstances are different on every case. I was laughed at on this forum and made to look a fool only to prove them wrong. Only the ombudsman can accept or reject the claim. It has nothing to do with what the PPI was against. If you were miss old a PPI then I suggest you contact them and fill in a form and send that with as much information as you can.

dunstonh

It has nothing to do with what the PPI was against

yes it does.

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

Except in most cases it is the same form anyway.

Except that it is the son, not the policyholder that is saying it.

The mere fact that somebody says something does not mean it is necessarily true and FOS acknowledges that it is difficult for a respondent firm to prove a negative. Obviously, in some cases they can (for example if a disclaimer refusing cover was signed).

The OP never said they did - so you are speculating.

It does nothing of the sort. Nationwide was required to check its evidence when the complaint came in and has found none to support the OP's assertions. So unless the OP can produce other evidence in support the likelihood of an overturn at FOS are low.

The OP has said (s)he will try to dig out more paperwork so my response confirms that doing so would be a good idea.

By contrast, your response to simply send it off anyway will not improve their chances.

They are not well served by being told to put a complaint to FOS without a realistic assessment of what might be needed.

I prefer to tell posters what they need to hear rather than what they would like to hear.

Wow, you must be really desperate to put people off from complaining about PPI (or anything else). Perhaps you should change your signature from 'helping advisers to resolve complaints' to 'I have a vested interest in dissuading the public from making complaints on this forum'

You pick on the smallest discrepancy and try and make it relevant
'it is the son not the policyholder' What, do think they have not talked to each other or the son has got the information to help out their father deal with this matter.

Apparently you are aware that Nationwide found no evidence to support the complaint in this case. How can you make such a statement without any supporting information. What is laughable is that you accuse me of speculation.

How on earth can you make a 'realistic assessment' when in reality you know nothing about the merits or otherwise of this case.

Consumers should not be dissuaded from going to FOS particularly on a forum designed to offer help and support.

They don't need to hear your 'realistic assessment' based on no facts whatsoever or what they 'need to hear'.

I am retired with no axe to grind, you have a vested interest in putting people off.

You don't know the case.