Partially successful PPI claim - Advice needed

Molko123

I rang RBS to inquire if i'd had any PPI in the past (I couldn't remember what loans i'd had or if i'd had PPI on any of them.)

They informed me i'd had the following

LOAN 1 - 2002 £2000. PPI paid approx £333
LOAN 2 - 2006 £2000. PPI paid approx £324
LOAN 3 - No PPI
Credit Card - 2007. PPI paid approx £477

I printed off forms from the internet and started complaints about loans 1&2 and the credit card. My basic complaint for all three was the same, I couldn't remember asking for PPI, I didn't want it or need it. (I was living at home at the time and had no outgoings or dependents and should I have become ill or lost my job statutory benefits would have happily covered my low monthly repayments)

The outcome was as follows.

LOAN 1 - called me to ask more detailed questions, I couldn't really expand on my original complaint as I could remember almost nothing about taking out the loan. They offered £370 comparative redress.

LOAN 2 - no phone call, just a letter back to say they agreed I was miss sold and offered £512

LOAN 3 - I didn't make a complaint about this loan as I was told it didn't have PPI. I received a letter offering £88

Credit card - called me to ask more detailed questions , again I couldn't really expand on my original complaint. They turned down my complaint saying I had taken the PPI out online when I took out the credit card online and had ticked the box saying I wanted PPI

I accepted the offers for loans 2&3 is it worth pursuing loan 1 and the credit card for better offers or forwarding these to the FOS?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Insider101

i am rather surprised loan 1 was defended in part as I wouldn't have thought they would bother for such a small amount. As regards this and the credit card, you can ask for a copy of the paperwork showing your application. But if this is your only complaint reason, I'm not surprised you've met with an indifferent response.

The problem is that it is a myth propagated by unscrupulous CMCs that PPI was widely added without people's knowledge. Loan PPI was clearly itemised on the loan agreement and credit card policies are clearly shown on every statement. If somebody had added it in error then it would generally be expected that you would query it at the time not several years later. And whilst I'm not questioning your honesty, there are so many people who are persuading themselves, aided and abetted by the fact that they can smell money, that they would never have taken out insurance because their rich granny would have paid off all their debts for them or equally spurious reason. FOS generally expects that a self respecting adult would want to be capable of standing on their own two feet. You presumably were not planning to live with your parents without contributing anything to the housekeeping forever?

wolverines

They are saying that the credit card was a non advised sale so they didn't sell you it, you chose to buy it with no bank staff involved. I'm guessing they have found no issues with the structure and design of the site they used. Something that wasn't sold can't be mis-sold.

I'm guessing loan 3 refinanced loan 2 so they have paid you because the refinancing was larger because it had to cover the cost of the PPI on loan 2 which they have now deemed mis-sold.

Who knows why loan 2 was upheld, lots of strange things happen with these things at banks and they may have identified a known issue with sales around that time. The fact that they did not ask you about it supports this and I would guess it was auto upheld on some design issue.

Your complaint points for loan 1 are extremely weak. Living arrangements, dependants and family arrangements are not considered and statutory benefits are insufficient. You would need to have 6-12 months contractual entitlement to full sick pay or redundancy before this becomes a potential factor and this approach is also taken by the FOS.

If you can't remember anything about the sale of loan 1 how do you remember that you didn't agree to the PPI? If you make an allegation then the onus is on you to provide some evidence to back it up. Chances are that from 2002 they will still have the CCA showing that you did agree to it, which would largely scupper your argument. Comparative redress suggests that they have found no evidence of any mis-sale save for the fact that a single premium was not suitable. Was this loan for refinance or debt consolidation by any chance?

WatchMan

wolverines wrote: »

They are saying that the credit card was a non advised sale so they didn't sell you it, you chose to buy it with no bank staff involved. I'm guessing they have found no issues with the structure and design of the site they used. Something that wasn't sold can't be mis-sold.

But it was sold...?

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

But it was sold...?

No, it was bought.

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

No, it was bought.

It was bought by Molko123 and sold by RBS.

The point I was getting at was Wolverines' apparent suggestion that because it was sold on a non-advised basis, it could not have been mis-sold. This is, of course, not true.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

It was bought by Molko123 and sold by RBS.

The point I was getting at was Wolverines' apparent suggestion that because it was sold on a non-advised basis, it could not have been mis-sold. This is, of course, not true.

What Wolverine meant was that the product wasn't "sold" in the context of nobody encouraged the OP to take it. Of course, if you take the word literally wherever there is a buyer then there is also a seller.

It's not so much the fact that the product was sold on a non advised basis that's the issue (most PPI is). It's the fact that there was no staff member present and the OP therefore proactively selected the product of their own accord. It is still possible for a complaint to be upheld but only usually if there was a pre-ticked box or if the information given on the website regarding the product was misleading or inaccurate.

wolverines

Insider101's comment is what I mean. Non advised internet sales are only really upheld if the information was not clear or if there were design issues with the site, such as not being able to proceed without selecting the PPI. RBS will have been through enough complaints (and FOS decisions) by know to know which are ok and which are not.

Imagine buying a toaster from Amazon for £10 then having the toaster arrive on time and as described. I can't really complaint that Amazon has mis-sold me the toaster....