We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!

Santander PPI review letter received April2015

Options
Hi

Has anybody else had a letter from Santander saying they are reviewing a complaint previously declined?

My original complaint was in 2009 for a card I took out in either Debenhams or House of Fraser in about 2000.

I previously used a solicitor for these two claims and both came back declined with a line through the paperwork with "NO PPI" scribble on the form. I recall feeling aggrieved, because I was convinced that I had 2 additional fees every month on my card and one was some kind of insurance. I'm starting to wonder if it was PPI of a sort, but not specifically called that. I recall trying to cancel this insurance in store perhaps a year after the card was opened because I was paying for something I felt I didn't need and it was adding to financial hardship at the time. I was told it couldn't be cancelled and the amount would always be a percentage of the outstanding balance.

Unfortunately, during a clear out, assuming that if a solicitor couldn't get the money, I shredded all of the old paperwork. I have nothing to go on other than the monthly payments I made to what was GE Capital Bank at the time.

So questions then I guess:
1) Has PPI previously been given a different name whilst effectively being the same thing?
2) Why are Santander writing to me about a PPI claim when they previously declined the claim saying there was no PPI? (Surely banks aren't dishonest..)
3) Can I get them to send me my original complaint?
4) Are Santander likely to have the original paperwork or might it be lost forever?

How do I approach this, given I had just my memory to go on and no paperwork.

I've successfully reclaimed about £6000 in PPI so far, I think this one is the most challenging though.
Appreciate any help at all - thanks in advance
«1

Comments

  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 119,679 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Quite a few banks are reviewing past complaints. In some cases the outcome is changed. In some cases it is not.
    I previously used a solicitor for these two claims and both came back declined with a line through the paperwork with "NO PPI" scribble on the form.

    Are you sure it was a solicitor and not a claims company?
    I recall feeling aggrieved, because I was convinced that I had 2 additional fees every month on my card and one was some kind of insurance.

    So, why didnt you take that up with them or refer it to the FOS?
    I'm starting to wonder if it was PPI of a sort, but not specifically called that.

    The marketing name doesnt matter. PPI stands for payment protection insurance and is the generic name.

    So questions then I guess:
    1) Has PPI previously been given a different name whilst effectively being the same thing?
    2) Why are Santander writing to me about a PPI claim when they previously declined the claim saying there was no PPI? (Surely banks aren't dishonest..)
    3) Can I get them to send me my original complaint?
    4) Are Santander likely to have the original paperwork or might it be lost forever?

    1 - no. (although going back a very long time, it used to be called Accident, Sickness and Unemployment cover. However, that is PPI. As said, name doesnt matter)
    2 - Where errors have been found by checkers, they are required to go back and check cases to see if the errors affected you.
    3 - you can ask them. However, surely you can remember what your complaint was?
    4 - impossible for us to say.
    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.
  • Didn't do anything about it at the time as I was young naive and didn't know I could. I didn't understand it.

    The term you gave as an alternative sounds familiar. Something I didn't need if I didn't have a job.

    Unfortunately I can't remember the complaint as it was 6 years ago that I filled in the form.
  • moosetastic
    moosetastic Posts: 1,195 Forumite
    PPI Party Pooper
    My sister has had one last week for her Evans card. Both her and I were refused our PPI claim as they sent us the form we had signed saying we had signed for PPI and therefore had agreed to it. Both of our arguments was that we were never told by the shop assistant that this is what we were signing for and just thought we were signing to get the card. She has sent hers back, I haven't received one yet but may just reclaim now I know they are relooking at them.
    You're so very special, I wish I was special :dance:

  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,678 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    My sister has had one last week for her Evans card. Both her and I were refused our PPI claim as they sent us the form we had signed saying we had signed for PPI and therefore had agreed to it. Both of our arguments was that we were never told by the shop assistant that this is what we were signing for and just thought we were signing to get the card. She has sent hers back, I haven't received one yet but may just reclaim now I know they are relooking at them.

    If you have complained and they rejected the complaint you cannot then claim again - you would be relying on them looking at the complaint again. If you get it and they decide to pay out it will be a bonus for you

    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.

  • bit more on this..

    I didn't have any of the details as explained, I asked Santander to send me them. I think they're quite cute about it - firstly they sent me what I sent them (despite asking for everything). I then requested they sent me the response to what I sent. I now have everything apart from the original agreement.
    The cover is referred to on the statements as "Account cover @£1.50 per £100).

    "It states the FSA's ICOB regulations came into force on 14 January 2005. As set out above, I note that this policy was set up in June 2001. As this was prior to January 2005, the FSA's decision is not relevant, but all complaints alleging that insurance may have been mis-old are taken very seriously."
    Question – what was the FSA’s decision that is not relevant here? Are they writing to me because it now is relevant?
    The original complaint stated that (1) I was not informed the PPI was optional and (2) they did not ascertain I had an existing scheme in place.

    The response continues..

    " In regarding to providing clear information and advising that the insurance is compulsory, I note that the process that we had in place was to make clear that it was not compulsory. I can confirm that on the agreement Mr X signed, it asked that they sign if the required the account cover, which they did. Therefore it appears that it was made clear that the policy was optional and that they elected to take out the insurance. Once a customer has decided to take the product, a policy summary and policy document is mail to the customer for their review. We also offer a 30 day no-quibble guarantee where the product may be cancelled and any premiums refunded"

    Question – I went into the store in the early days of the cover (after 30 days) to try cancel the policy. I was told I couldn’t, unless I paid off the whole balance first. My word against their. This appears to contradict the above, but it’s my word against theirs. Worth adding in the latest response?
    “In regards to ascertaining personal information from the customer to determine their suitability for the product, this is a requirement of an advised sale under the FSA’s ICOB regulations and our insurance sales have always been non-advised*. We have always given the customer the details of the policy and let the customer make an educated decision if the policy is suitable for them.”

    Questions – should they have checked on my suitability for this PPI even if their practice was that these sales we “non-advised”?

    Since June 2001, Mr X did not contact us to advise that he did not wish to proceed with the insurance or did not understand the policy, the cover was not cancelled and whilst it remained on the account, the relevant insurance premiums charged monthly. The insurance has been clearly shown on the statements, when a balance has been outstanding, and could have been cancelled or a claim been made at any time. After a thorough investing I can find no evidence of the mis-selling of this insurance

    I’ve been knocked by on this for the 2 reasons listed above (1) I was not informed the PPI was optional and (2) they did not ascertain I had an existing scheme in place.
    However, it appears something has changed somewhere and that is the reason they must reconsider the complaint. The information they have asked for asks for a lot of employment/education information.
    Having researched this, I can find a number of other reasons I shouldn't have been sold this.

    When I took out the cover, I was in a part-time, zero hours contract, working about 15-20 hours per week. This was in June, and I was due to revert back to being a full time uni student just 3 months later in September.

    I’m open to being corrected here, but are the following therefore reasons for not being eligible or suitable for this PPI?

    -You worked less than 16 hours a week when the PPI was sold to you. Part-time workers are not eligible for PPI coverage. The person selling you the policy should have enquired about your employment situation. (though hours varied)
    -You were employed on a temporary or contract basis when the PPI was sold to you. Temporary or contract workers are not eligible for PPI coverage. The person selling you the policy should have enquired about your employment situation
    -You were aware you may become unemployed when the PPI was sold to you. If you had reason to believe that you were facing an imminent loss of income, then you would have been ineligible for insurance covering this event and should not have been sold PPI.
    -You were not informed that the PPI policy would not cover certain health conditions. Mental health issues, such as stress or depression, and common muscular problems, such as backache, are often not covered by PPI policies. This should have been explained to you when you were offered the policy. (the only long term sickness I had ever had at work was for depression)

    I also feel aggrieved in that the sickness cover wasn’t discussed and the main reason for pushing the PPI was that it safeguarded me from any drop in price with purchases if I then found they were in a sale afterwards. Hardly the point to be pushing, but one that would appeal most to a student perhaps! Open to comments, but please refrain from pointing out how foolish and naive I was, I'm very aware of this 15 years later :-)
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,678 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Any which way you write it, you complained, they rejected it, you didn't go to the FOS inside 6 months, they can timebar it. If they have decided to look at it again you might get lucky but surely you presented all this info when you complained the first time?

    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.

  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 119,679 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    That's not particularly helpful..

    Although it is the correct answer.
    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.
  • dunstonh wrote: »
    Although it is the correct answer.

    It's not the answer to any of the questions asked, so it's not helpful at all. Some people love to come on these forums and criticise.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,678 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    It's not the answer to any of the questions asked, so it's not helpful at all. Some people love to come on these forums and criticise.

    Don't mix up criticism with blunt facts.

    The PPI complaint process is defined - you complain, if you are unhappy with the bank's response you are allowed to refer to the FOS inside 6 months (and there is leeway if there is something that prevents you doing it, such as serious illness, death in family etc). Once the 6 months are up the bank is allowed to timebar it and the FOS cannot do anything.

    In cases like this, the bank has decided to reinvestigate (perhaps identified errors in the way their staff or even a single staff member was looking at the case) but if your paperwork is gone you would be relying on Santander to have copies (and do note, the store card business was run through GE Money who Santander later bought it off) - if the account was closed before GE sold it, there is a fair chance Santander would not have carried the details over.

    See what they say, they may decide your circumstances were such that you should be refunded, they may uphold their original choice, you have been fortunate they have decided to do this

    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.

  • fairchi44
    fairchi44 Posts: 27 Forumite
    I would be interested to see what happens with these complaints . I too had a store card , originally from GE money then taken over by Santander. I complained about mis-sold PPI in2010 and after months of correspondence backwards and forwards was rejected. My complaint was that I was unemployed at the time and the sales assistant asked me to sign where the cross was , I . stupidly thought I was signing for the card . They came back asking me for National Insurance details which verified unemployment which I sent . Santander then replied stating the policy would then become a 'breadwinners' policy and revert to my husband . I argued that he was self employed and he did not sign the form .
    I received a letter a few weeks ago , stating the claim was being reviewed . They asked for all the documentation and correspondence I had sent them originally and , luckily I had copied everything so I'm now waiting to hear .
    I don't expect anything from them as I think they are just going through the motions as have been told to reinvestigate .
    That said, I had a similar claim from Marks and Spencer rejected in 2010 and last year , out of the blue , I was told they were reinvestigating it and received a cheque for 17K so stranger things have happened.
    Good luck everyone
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
  • 351K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 244K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.9K Life & Family
  • 257.3K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K 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.