RBS Credit Card PPI claim more than 6 months after final letter?

DynamoCappo

This has become a long running story (and it's partly my fault) but I'm looking for advice on my options now.

A brief run down is as follows...(apologies I've just read it back and it's not really that "brief")

I've had an RBS Credit Card since 1999. In mid 2012, I put in a claim for mis-selling of PPI. Back in 1999, I had been told it would help my application for the card if I took the option and I also had a copy of the application form which shows the box for PPI was ticked by the bank staff (and the rest of the form filled in not in my hand writing either) with the signature only by me.

I figured it was pretty nailed on this proved a mis-sale.

The RBS rejected the claim saying that as the PPI had paid out in 2002 (when I had become unemployed for 6 weeks) they didn't think it was a claim I could make.

I wrote back explaining that I didn't feel that payout in anyway related to my claim of mis-selling and complained they'd ignored the two points I'd raised initially. Their final response was that they considered the matter closed. I felt aggrieved at not only the ignoring of my reasons for the claim but also that even with a payout it only specifically reflected the PPI was genuine but in no way proved it wasn't mis-sold given I had been told it was to aid the process of application for the card which is now known to not be true.

Now, I lost a bit of heart at that point and as the birth of my first child was imminent and my mum had been suffering health issues, it went to the back of my mind. My brother and father also have on-going medical issues so when my mum is suffering, the duty of care on those two falls with me more than ever.

Despite probably being informed, with the final RBS letter, of the Ombudsman option didn't go to the FOS at that point given everything going on in my life.

Two years later in Sept 14 (having had our second child in April 14 and starting a business with my wife between that period too) I finally contacted the Ombudsman and they told me that after 6 months it was unlikely it could be taken on but said to write in with the details of everything I've explained above and they'd look at it.

Finally, today, they've reviewed it all and the decision is they won't take the case on with the information I have provided. I get the impression it was a close run thing but my mention of my mum's improved health at one point gave them the impression I would have had time after maybe a year from the final RBS letter to contact the FOS and that had that been the case, they could have looked in to it.

The FOS person said I now have 21 days to provide anything else that might be of use.

Is there anything I should be doing or is it now simply at the point where it's done? I'm annoyed at myself for letting it run this long but feel that the RBSs tactics of blindly ignoring my initial points led to all this in the first place.

I saw an article from MSE (I can't link it since I'm a new member)
which says cases had been reopened on the basis of banks not answering appropriately but I don't know if I'm scuppered on that point too due to the 6 month limit.

Any advice is very welcome

Nasqueron

The FOS allows you 6 months from a rejection to refer to them - if you could prove for that entire period from rejection to when you spoke to them you were unable to refer it for some reason they might look at it but the 6 month rule allows the bank to reject any attempt to re-open the case.

If you claimed on the insurance though, it's harder to show miss-sale as you knew about it and it was suitable for you

dunstonh

I had been told it would help my application for the card if I took the option and I also had a copy of the application form which shows the box for PPI was ticked by the bank staff (and the rest of the form filled in not in my hand writing either) with the signature only by me.

Having the form ticked by another person is not an issue. That is allowed and indicates nothing. Clearly it did not concern you in 2002 when it paid out in a claim.

The rest of it is an unprovable allegation.

I felt aggrieved at not only the ignoring of my reasons for the claim but also that even with a payout it only specifically reflected the PPI was genuine but in no way proved it wasn't mis-sold given I had been told it was to aid the process of application for the card which is now known to not be true.

They didnt ignore your reasons. They just found no evidence. What evidence did you provide them?

Finally, today, they've reviewed it all and the decision is they won't take the case on with the information I have provided. I get the impression it was a close run thing but my mention of my mum's improved health at one point gave them the impression I would have had time after maybe a year from the final RBS letter to contact the FOS and that had that been the case, they could have looked in to it.

The FOS tend to be quite strict on the timebar issue. You have to justify the whole 2 year period. So, whilst you may have been able to justify some of it, it sounds like you couldnt do all of it.

I saw an article from MSE (I can't link it since I'm a new member)
which says cases had been reopened on the basis of banks not answering appropriately but I don't know if I'm scuppered on that point too due to the 6 month limit.

In those cases, the banks are carrying out reviews automatically.

DynamoCappo

Nasqueron wrote: »

The FOS allows you 6 months from a rejection to refer to them - if you could prove for that entire period from rejection to when you spoke to them you were unable to refer it for some reason they might look at it but the 6 month rule allows the bank to reject any attempt to re-open the case.

If you claimed on the insurance though, it's harder to show miss-sale as you knew about it and it was suitable for you

Yeah, I take that point. My claim on the mis-sale was that I was told it would aid the process of the application which I've since learned isn't correct.

On the pay-out, it was for a single month period and also an amount I could cover from money I had so again, going on what the FOS told me during conversations with them, I don't neccessarily see it as a reason for it being suitable. If it had covered amounts that I couldn't pay myself, I could see the reasoning there.

DynamoCappo

dunstonh wrote: »

Having the form ticked by another person is not an issue. That is allowed and indicates nothing. Clearly it did not concern you in 2002 when it paid out in a claim.

The rest of it is an unprovable allegation.

They didnt ignore your reasons. They just found no evidence. What evidence did you provide them?

The FOS tend to be quite strict on the timebar issue. You have to justify the whole 2 year period. So, whilst you may have been able to justify some of it, it sounds like you couldnt do all of it.

In those cases, the banks are carrying out reviews automatically.

Thanks for your responses too.

In relation to the first point, I've kind of explained above as to the 2002 point and the small payout. Along with that, the main point for me was being told it would aide the application.

I don't know the differences but I had a PPI refund from the RBS on a personal loan based on the exact same circumstances. I was also told that PPI on that would help the process of application for the loan and that form was also filled in by others. It paid out almost instantly, the CC seemed to elicit a different response.

As far as your unprovable allegation point goes, from what I can see it was the sole reason for paying out on the personal loan. Why would it be different for the CC?

I think it's certainly the case that my mother's health issues not covering the entire two year period (or certainly not doing so in extreme measures as I explained it - mental health is never a worry that completely goes away) is the issue indeed.

It might do me no harm to contact the bank and ask about the reviews even if they are doing them automatically in specific cases. I still feel that I was lied to on the sale of it as regards the helping of the application process by adding PPI

dunstonh

I don't know the differences but I had a PPI refund from the RBS on a personal loan based on the exact same circumstances.

It is not the exact same circumstances. Loan PPI sold by a different person on a different product with single premium PPI compared to credit card which is monthly premium PPI.

I was also told that PPI on that would help the process of application for the loan and that form was also filled in by others.

Your complaint would not have been upheld for that reason.

It paid out almost instantly,

Possibly an auto payout.

As far as your unprovable allegation point goes, from what I can see it was the sole reason for paying out on the personal loan. Why would it be different for the CC?

You would not have been paid out on the loan because of an unprovable allegation. There would have been another failure identified or it would have been an auto payout.

DynamoCappo

Again, thanks for your comments.

I'm getting the impression there's no point in trying to take in any further then eh?

My take on it was that the FOS seemed to be indicating there was very much so a point in claiming even based on the points I was making but that the 6 month thing was the only issue.

Is it just the case they have to be seen to taking the case to the full extent of each issue, or are indeed actually doing so, and in my case it was to exhaust the 6 month issue even if there was no cause for a claim going beyond that?

dunstonh

I'm getting the impression there's no point in trying to take in any further then eh?

You can try but the FOS have refused to allow you break the timebar. So, that is your first challenge.

if you do get it overturned then your second challenge is that your complaint is weak. Its similar to me saying that you took £200 out of my wallet and now repay me and expecting to be repaid just because I said so.

My take on it was that the FOS seemed to be indicating there was very much so a point in claiming even based on the points I was making but that the 6 month thing was the only issue.

You made an allegation. An allegation that is a valid complaint reason. So, they would indicate that. However, if they ever get to look at it, they would also come to the conclusion there is no evidence to support that allegation. Take a look at this FOS decision as an indication:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=28110

You will see that when a complaint is looked at, they dont just look at the reason you give. They look at the whole sale. You will also see that allegations need to be backed up to suggest that is what likely happened. They just cant take your word for it. So, you could complain about something, be rejected on that point but they find another issue that you didnt know about and uphold for that reason. On upheld decisions (that dont go to the FOS) they dont say why they uphold it. So, you never know if its your reason or another reason that you succeeded.

Is it just the case they have to be seen to taking the case to the full extent of each issue, or are indeed actually doing so, and in my case it was to exhaust the 6 month issue even if there was no cause for a claim going beyond that?

The FOS telephone line are typically enthusiastic to look at complaints. Some may argue that is because they are paid by the case. Others may say that they dont want to be seen to refuse to look at something as they dont have the facts so they encourage you to complain. If you phone them up there is almost a scripted response that says "it is something that we would like to look at".

A colleague of mine a few years back was being told by an adjudicator that the complaint would be rejected whilst at the same time, the adjudicator was telling the client the complaint had merit right up to when it was rejected.

I suspect it is the language the FOS use which is very liberal and in a wrapped up in cotton wool style. For example, in another FOS decision, it is clear that the person complaining is trying it on and the claims company have lied in their template letter (very common) and the lie has been found out. The FOS dont say that in their response despite it being very obvious. They say that a lot of time has gone by and the person cannot remember. Very forgiving tone and very liberal.

Insider101

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS telephone line are typically enthusiastic to look at complaints. Some may argue that is because they are paid by the case. Others may say that they dont want to be seen to refuse to look at something as they dont have the facts so they encourage you to complain. If you phone them up there is almost a scripted response that says "it is something that we would like to look at".

I don't think it's really that. It is simply due to the fact that they are unqualified customer service staff who are there to try and be helpful to whoever they speak to. It is the same with the banks own PPI complaint lines, I have heard stories of telephone agents almost insisting that customers put a complaint in there and then when they only phoned up out of interest to see if they had PPI. It is little more than a misguided attempt to provide good service.

A colleague of mine a few years back was being told by an adjudicator that the complaint would be rejected whilst at the same time, the adjudicator was telling the client the complaint had merit right up to when it was rejected.

I suspect it is the language the FOS use which is very liberal and in a wrapped up in cotton wool style. For example, in another FOS decision, it is clear that the person complaining is trying it on and the claims company have lied in their template letter (very common) and the lie has been found out. The FOS dont say that in their response despite it being very obvious. They say that a lot of time has gone by and the person cannot remember. Very forgiving tone and very liberal.

It would be funny if they did. "Complaint rejected due to CMC lies" :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

magpiecottage

The nearest to acknowledging a lie I have found is DRN6496629.

The Ombudsman said "Mr and Mrs C’s representatives have said that Mr and Mrs C were not aware that the MPPI was added to the account. However, they also said, at an earlier stage of the complaints process, that
Lloyds Bank told them that the MPPI was compulsory if they wanted to
get a mortgage. These two versions cannot both be correct, and this suggests that memories are no longer clear so many years later."

That might be what it suggests to the ombudsman. What it suggests to me is that the ambulance chaser fraudulently made allegations with total disregard to whether they were true or not in the hope that one would be right.

DynamoCappo

It looks like there is not going to be a positive answer to my claim against the RBS Credit Card PPI I had as far as a mis-sale goes.

However, there were numerous times when I phoned to try and cancel the policy and was given the runaround by the staff transferring the calls to different departments before the line would eventually go dead / I'd be on hold so long I had to give up.

Yesterday (and this is now years later obviously), I phoned to finally cancel it as there is a balance on the card again. It was done in 30 seconds over the phone.

Is there an avenue to raise an action against them on the basis they actively stopped me in trying to cancel the policy?

I read about similar situations in a thisismoney.co.uk article recently too.

Again, I can't post a link but if you add this to the above website link, it should provide the information.

/money/saving/article-1641434/Whistleblower-RBS-trains-staff-to-lie.html