We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

On a PPI roll!

Ducatikid
Ducatikid Posts: 3 Newbie
in Reclaim PPI & other insurance
Hi everyone,

I've recently claimed back over £32000 in miss old PPI. £18k from First Plus who initially said I didn't have PPI, £12+k from loans with RBS dating back to 1997 and £1700+ from RBS credit card. Now I'm on a roll I have contacted Egg which I had a credit card back in 2005, they rejected my claim because I applied on line and deliberately checked the PPI box otherwise the application would have been deleted. Is it worth pursuing with the Ombudsman?

Thanks in advance

Lee
«1

Comments

  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 120,301 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    hey rejected my claim because I applied on line and deliberately checked the PPI box otherwise the application would have been deleted. Is it worth pursuing with the Ombudsman?
    Were you mis-sold it and how?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Ducatikid
    Ducatikid Posts: 3 Newbie
    edited 19 March 2015 at 11:14PM
    Apparently when I applied on line I was told in a recent letter from Egg that I must have checked the PPI tick box to carry on with the application, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get the card. I have read on this forum tonight that this happened to someone else and their claim was also rejected but were then actually paid out by Egg.
  • -taff
    -taff Posts: 15,429 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    If you can show you didn't need it you have a chance.
    Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi
  • tomtontom
    tomtontom Posts: 7,929 Forumite
    You must have had an astronomical amount of debt to have paid that much PPI. If you need help managing your finances the DFW board is worth looking at.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Ducatikid wrote: »
    Apparently when I applied on line I was told in a recent letter from Egg that I must have checked the PPI tick box to carry on with the application, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to get the card. I have read on this forum tonight that this happened to someone else and their claim was also rejected but were then actually paid out by Egg.

    You're possibly mixing up a couple of things here - some banks were known to have used pre-ticked (or opt-out) boxes at some point in online sales - you actively had to say you didn't want it, those cases are normally miss-sold. If the box was unticked and you ticked it to say you wanted it, on an online sale, then by simple logic you were not miss-sold as the bank did not sell you anything - buying online no-one was involved in a sale and you actively indicated you wanted PPI so in this case you actually miss-bought. Buyers remorse is not miss-sale.

    If Egg records show you ticked the box then you won't get any further with them. You are welcome to try the FOS as is your right and might get lucky with an auto-payout but you would be winning by default, not because you were actually miss-sold

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • -taff
    -taff Posts: 15,429 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    If Egg records show you ticked the box then you won't get any further with them. You are welcome to try the FOS as is your right

    I complained, was rejected, went to the FOS, went to an Ombudsman, went in my favour, because I could show I didn't need it.
    Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 120,301 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    -taff wrote: »
    I complained, was rejected, went to the FOS, went to an Ombudsman, went in my favour, because I could show I didn't need it.

    Generically, you wouldnt have expected that to work on a non-advised sale with no other failings. Which just highlights the inconsistencies that do occur with different people checking different cases. Inconsitencies make it very difficult for anyone to really know an outcome in advance. We have seen people with no case for complaint get paid out and others with genuine reasons be rejected.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • -taff
    -taff Posts: 15,429 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Yes. There were other factors, including time outs on the application, and the ombudsmans belief that not enough info was provided at the point of sale.
    Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 11,085 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    -taff wrote: »
    Yes. There were other factors, including time outs on the application, and the ombudsmans belief that not enough info was provided at the point of sale.

    Wording might be a bit off, I believe you "shouldn't" get a miss-sale refund if you actively tick a box to say you wanted something with no sales staff involvement - "point of sale" when there was no sale involved ;)

    Timeouts on application preventing reading Ts & Cs is a bit dubious given the vast majority of people will not read them so using that to get a win as well is a bit off, if you can show you always read every T&C every time on every application you have ever done then fair enough but the average person who went onto egg, ticked the box to say they read them and ticked to say they wanted PPI was not miss-sold period, they miss-bought regardless of technical get-outs.

    Up to the FOS though if they want to judge it that way.

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • -taff
    -taff Posts: 15,429 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I'm not complaining :)
    Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 259.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.
Update Your Picture