MSE News: Clydesdale Bank to review PPI claims after record £20.6m fine

scottishlady1110

When my husband applied for a credit card decades ago, he was told that if he wanted his application to be successful, he really should agree to add a protection option to cover theft or loss. He didn't even know he had PPI - he had refused it every time it had been offered because he didn't need it. He was shocked when he found out he had been paying it for over 20 years!
His claim was upheld by the ombudsman but Clydesdale Bank appealed and a different ombudsman agreed with them. Do you think his case has any chance of a review?

Nasqueron

scottishlady1110 wrote: »

When my husband applied for a credit card decades ago, he was told that if he wanted his application to be successful, he really should agree to add a protection option to cover theft or loss. He didn't even know he had PPI - he had refused it every time it had been offered because he didn't need it. He was shocked when he found out he had been paying it for over 20 years!
His claim was upheld by the ombudsman but Clydesdale Bank appealed and a different ombudsman agreed with them. Do you think his case has any chance of a review?

The FOS has 2 layers, adjudicator and ombudsman, if the bank appealed the adjudicator verdict (as you could have done if they rejected you) and the ombudsman sided with them then that is it, no payout.

Your post is a bit contradictory though, you say he was "didn't even know he had PPI" yet that "he was told that if he wanted his application to be successful, he really should agree to add a protection option to cover theft or loss" - if you argued that then the bank would simply have shown it on every statement proving he did know about it. Your "pressure sale" is hearsay

dunstonh

His claim was upheld by the ombudsman but Clydesdale Bank appealed and a different ombudsman agreed with them. Do you think his case has any chance of a review?

That isnt how he ombudsman system works. Although I suspect its more terminology at play here.

When you refer your complaint to the FOS, it is looked at by an adjudicator. These are lower qualified (they are not required to have any financial services qualifications) and its a bit of a checklist style process. Both you and the firm have the right to appeal a decision by an adjudicator. In your case, the bank appealed and the appeal is looked at by an ombudsman. The ombudsman are higher qualified and they are the final the decision makers in the process.

I suspect the bank felt your complaint was spurious as you have contradicted yourself. You said he didnt know he had it for 20 years (despite it appearing on the monthly statement) but then say he was told he had to have it. That clearly cannot be the case and casts doubt on his credibility. If the same was repeated in the complaint, then you would expect the bank to have pointed that out.

Do you think his case has any chance of a review?

No. The ombudsman decision is final. You can try the courts if you feel like it but the courts tend to listen to ombudsman decisions as they are the independent arbiter of complaints with a greater knowledge of the issues than the court would initially have. Plus, if you lose, you could suffer costs. There are not many successful court cases and an error like you have made in your post here would not go down well in the courts.

scottishlady1110

Thanks Nasqueron. Sorry, an adjudicator found in his favour but following the banks appeal an ombudsman agreed with the bank.
If my husband's credit card had been lost or stolen or if someone had managed to use it fraudulently - he would have thought he had some sort of insurance cover (he has since found out that the card already had that cover and he did not need to pay any extra for it!) but he would never have thought he had any sort of payment protection cover, he would never have thought to claim it (never mind the fact that he didn't need it). The box that the bank advisor ticked on his application form actually mentions 'loss or theft of card' - no mention of payment protection. Bank statements over the years changed what they called it.

scottishlady1110

Thanks dunstonh, I thought all cases were being reviewed. I wish they were clearer with their information.
I don't know correct legal talk or how to put things but I do know he was lied to. He never asked for, wanted or needed PPI and he really didn't know he had it.
I'll tell him his case won't be reviewed, no point waiting 18 months for their letter.
He can get some legal advice if he wants now.
Thanks again for your advice.

dunstonh

Thanks dunstonh, I thought all cases were being reviewed. I wish they were clearer with their information.

All rejections that didnt go to the FOS and some upholds that may not have received enough money.

I don't know correct legal talk or how to put things but I do know he was lied to. He never asked for, wanted or needed PPI and he really didn't know he had it.

When dealing with the ombudsman, its best not to use legal talk. Often a consumer trying to sound smarter than they are will confuse legal issues and force the ombudsman to react in a legal style back. However, it is important not to contradict yourself as it causes you to lose credibility and so many decisions end up as a balance of probability decision and that tends to go with the most credible side.

scottishlady1110

He knew he had card protection but he didn't know he had PPI, where's the contradiction dunstonh?

magpiecottage

scottishlady1110 wrote: »

He knew he had card protection but he didn't know he had PPI, where's the contradiction dunstonh?

Unfortunately, if a complainant says they were told they had to have the policy at one point and elsewhere says they did not know they had it, an ombudsman is likely to pick up on it. When looking at a case, they have to be persuaded that a complaint point is more likely than not, and not merely as equally to be true.

You cannot both remember being told it was necessary or advantageous to buy it AND have no recollection of buying it. Therefore, with no other evidence, the first allegation has at least a 50% likelihood of not being true because the second allegation reduces it to this level. At the same time, the first allegation restricts the second one to that level as well.

So the ombudsman cannot conclude that either is more likely than not to be true and must reject the complaint.

sun73

scottishlady1110 wrote: »

He knew he had card protection but he didn't know he had PPI, where's the contradiction dunstonh?[/QUOTE


If your husband was paying for a card protection policy on this credit card he can submit a request for a refund from the lender, for all the premiums he paid (plus interest), as it was sold pre-2005.


Just out of interest, on the credit card application form did he have to tick a box to say he didn't want PPI cover

[Deleted User]

sun73 wrote: »

If your husband was paying for a card protection policy on this credit card he can submit a request for a refund from the lender, for all the premiums he paid (plus interest), as it was sold pre-2005.

Since he has already complained about the insurance and been rejected both by the Bank and later by the Ombudsman, very clearly he cannot submit another request for a refund.

The question is whether the Bank will be reconsidering the complaint as part of the Review demanded by the regulator and the answer is that they will not be reviewing any cases already rejected by FOS.

This thread is in danger of wandering off-topic.