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.
No Records Pre 2001
I recently did a PPI claim on two Natwest cards and have received a response from RBS to say that my claim is valid, they offered compensation from the close of the cards back to 2001 but state that they don't keep records beyond that so can't offer compensation back to when the cards started (1998 & 1999). I called them and they said they will pay if I have statements or I can contact the Ombudsman.
Has anyone had experience of this?
Comments
-
Yes many people have - the FOS may well ask them to provide you with an average amount based on spending from known records - however that would assume it was possible to prove you were paying it back then.
You need to clarify if they know you took it out in 1998/9 - if there is proof then they should offer the average amount, if there is no proof you had it back then, accept the refund and enjoy your windfall.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.
0 -
A SAR to Natwest/RBS credit cards might reveal the original credit agreement which could give you an approximate start date for each account and PPI. Do you have any other proof the cards were in use before 2001?0
-
A SAR to Natwest/RBS credit cards might reveal the original credit agreement which could give you an approximate start date for each account and PPI. Do you have any other proof the cards were in use before 2001?
DSAR is a real gamble of £10 given the bank have already stated they have records back to 2001 but nothing older, why would they lie about 2 years of records given they have paid out for 10+ years worth (assuming cards were closed in the last few years)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.
0 -
When the YB sent me my redress offer, they stated they had limited paperwork between 1988 and 2001 (bizarrely they had my first year statements from 1988)and made assesment on my spending patterns and records pre and post that period.
Marty...0 -
Speaking from personal experience, it was only by submitting a SAR that NatWest cards found the credit agreement from 1999, not the PPI department. Someone told me it was not held in the same archive system as statements. I am not suggesting the bank are lying, they just search harder when its a SAR.0
-
Speaking from personal experience, it was only by submitting a SAR that NatWest cards found the credit agreement from 1999, not the PPI department. Someone told me it was not held in the same archive system as statements. I am not suggesting the bank are lying, they just search harder when its a SAR.
It is possible yes but in this case there are several facts that would suggest it would be a waste:
Bank has admitted miss-selling
Bank has repaid money from records they keep from whatever point the card was closed right back to 2001
Bank has stated that they have not got any records from the first 2-3 years of the account
It is logical to assume if the bank has agreed it was miss-sold and paid out for something up to 14 years, they wouldn't really gain much by pretending not to have records from such a short period - and I'm sure they have stated in the letter they will pay if records are found.
If the bank said they only had say the last 6 years, I would agree a gamble on the DSAR, but given the period they have paid out for seems OP would be wasting £10 instead of enjoying the windfall.
Only thing I would suggest is if the OP has any proof they took out the card in 1998/9 then give that to the bank and ask if they can do a payout on average spending for the known periods (and ask FOS to review if bank won't)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.
0 -
Hi
Yes I have had the same from RBS,
after I spent days digging out the old statements going back to 1989 and then faxing them to RBS I was contacted to say they had estimated back to the start ie 1989 and my information now made the amount I was entitled to less than that they had originally calculated.
Though I am still unsure as to whether they have calculated it correctly as they will not provide a clear breakdown of their calculation
0 -
ANGRY_AT_RBS wrote: »Hi
Yes I have had the same from RBS,
after I spent days digging out the old statements going back to 1989 and then faxing them to RBS I was contacted to say they had estimated back to the start ie 1989 and my information now made the amount I was entitled to less than that they had originally calculated.
Though I am still unsure as to whether they have calculated it correctly as they will not provide a clear breakdown of their calculation
If your records prove you paid more then ask the FOS to look at it, make sure you keep the originals.
It is possible though that the bank used spending limits from known periods and it happens that during those periods you paid more than in the periods they didn't have records for.
At the least you have got back what you paid and have not got more than you were entitled to.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.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards