HSBC success and failure

Josh615498

Hi all

So the weekend I got a letter from HSBC saying they were upholding my complaint in respect of a loan I took out in November 2003. Yippee £618.00 to me!
However they are not upholding my claim on a Credit Card they say I took PPI out on in 2004 and a loan I took out in 2000.
With the card they say I took out the policy in 2004, 2 years after taking the card out and my premium charges were clearly visible on all my statements. Fair enough!
But the loan they aren't paying out on they say that at that time the loan I took out was sold with a PPI policy and it was HSBC procedure to give the policy document to the customer and the customer then has 28 days to cancel the policy.
I know for a fact that if PPI was mentioned I would have said it was not wanted or needed (great benefits with job at time if sick etc). It just seems to me that the loan was only available if it was taken out with the policy and the onus was on the customer the cancel. This was not made clear to me at the time or I would have cancelled it!
Thoughts?

Thanks,
Lisa

[Deleted User]

You have six months to refer your complaint to the Ombudsman, but your reasons are not compelling I'm afraid.

Josh615498

So it's a case of their word against mine where theirs is believed and mine is not?

Nasqueron

Josh615498 wrote: »

So it's a case of their word against mine where theirs is believed and mine is not?

Yes, that is how law works, the accuser must prove their case, not the accused to disprove it. That is why I can't say that you owe me £50 and ask you to prove you don't

Placida

Nasqueron wrote: »

Yes, that is how law works, the accuser must prove their case, not the accused to disprove it.

Don't the FOS work differently from the courts and take a different approach to resolving disputes?

Aren't there differing rules on evidence and the burden of proof between the FOS and the Courts?

Nasqueron wrote: »

That is why I can't say that you owe me £50 and ask you to prove you don't

Agreed-but the FOS settles individual complaints between consumers and financial businesses.

Nasqueron

Placida wrote: »

Don't the FOS work differently from the courts and take a different approach to resolving disputes?

Aren't there are differing rules on evidence and the burden of proof between the FOS and the Courts?



Agreed-but the FOS settles individual complaints between consumers and financial businesses.

FOS has some consumer bias yes but they have to rule based on evidence and will not take the word of someone over the bank without any evidence.

In a 50/50 case where there is no records the FOS will only be able to judge what the OP says against what the bank says and see which is more credible. If the bank shows that a process was in place to give out documentation then that trumps the OP saying they didn't receive anything (which is an easy claim to make).

In the OP's loan case the bank says the OP was given documentation about PPI and told they had 28 days to cancel. You obviously cannot have a situation where you can just say you weren't told anything about it and the bank has to prove they told you as that gives an absurd burden of proof and means anyone could get a refund by just saying they were not told about it.

The bank may have a copy of the contract being signed which will trump the OP's memory.

Josh615498

HSBC have said that the loan was sold with PPI but I didn't want it. Why wasn't I just sold the loan without it. Why are they paying out on the later loan?

Nasqueron

Josh615498 wrote: »

HSBC have said that the loan was sold with PPI but I didn't want it. Why wasn't I just sold the loan without it.

Why didn't you refuse to sign the paperwork showing the loan + PPI?

Josh615498 wrote: »

Why are they paying out on the later loan?

Any number of reasons - maybe they found a failing in their process, maybe they had no evidence that you were given the details, maybe the payout is low enough for them to auto-pay (with a £550 fee at the FOS you can see why they wouldn't bother fighting it) etc

Insider101

Josh615498 wrote: »

HSBC have said that the loan was sold with PPI but I didn't want it. Why wasn't I just sold the loan without it. Why are they paying out on the later loan?

Nobody here can answer that because we don't know HSBC's internal complaints resolution procedures and weren't party to the decision making process. Given the relatively small amount of redress I suspect it might have been just because it is more hassle than it is worth to argue the case.

Likewise the first question we can't answer because we weren't there. We don't know what happened. It probably was their policy at the time to offer PPI to borrowers - there's nothing wrong with that, they are allowed to offer products, they are a business after all. As to why your particular loan ended up being taken with PPI and not without, nobody can really try and guess the sequence of events that led to that.

Without meaning to sound condescending, it is pretty clear that you don't have any real memory of what happened. From personal experience, there are any number of people who happily took out PPI at the time, yet years later when it becomes clear there might be money involved, it suddenly becomes obvious that they would never have taken out PPI because their auntie's cat would have paid off their debt or equally silly excuse. Are you sure you're not one of them?

Josh615498

Thank you Insider101 for the info. I appreciate you can't offer me any answers as 'you weren't there'. I was just asking for advice which is what I thought a forum was all about. My mistake. And as for your last comment, HSBC are the only company to confirm the presence of PPI out of all the countless companies ive had finance from, and believe me, there's been a lot over the years. No one else added PPI to loans I took out as I didn't want it. You can understand why I'm adamant I didn't take it out...

sussexbhoy

I'd complain on the basis of single premium PPI on the loan in 2000, I'm pretty sure the bank didn't explain verbally or in any documentation that the PPI would be added to the loan and therefore additional interest would be charged, basically a loan on a loan.