Another ppi question?

miss.average

I was clearing out my attic over Christmas, and came across ALL of my MBNA credit card statements ( from 1996 - to now ,) I didn't realise I was a hoarder! The card is in my name but my husband had one too ( he's self employed)

When I claim do have to copy them all - or can I send in ' a few'.

I feel I have a claim, but can someone help me , please

I clearly remember taking this card out on the phone , when the operative said that in order to have the card, ppi would be added. I didn't realise that it was optional. I was in need of the card to pay bills etc as I'd only just had a baby - I was working full time. To be truthful - at that time I don't think I even knew what ppi was!

In 2007 I became ill and my employers were difficult! After a few months I reviewed all our household bills etc. while meeting our bank manager, she said if we had ppi on any cards we should ask for help. I contacted mbna , who basically said that I couldn't claim. therefore a couple of months later I wrote to them explaining my situation and asking to cancel the ppi.

In 2010 when I became a bit more aware of ppi, I wrote to them to complain, but they fobbed me off for months and months saying that I had ticked a box (???) .
Now that I've found all these statements I wondering whether I should claim again, as I still believe I paid for something I didn't want, and was useless to me.

Sorry to go on and on
thanks for any advice

[Deleted User]

The statements are only useful if the Bank says they have no records. The Bank have already rejected your complaint, so sending them reams of statements won't make them re-open your complaint I'm afraid. Your statements would have to show new evidence of mis-sale not in your original complaint and I can't see that they do anything other than show the amount of PPI you paid.

Too late now, but back in 2010 you should have referred your complaint to the Ombudsman.

Justice13075

It is not to late. If you husband put down he was self employed when he took out the card it is irrelevant if he ticked the box for PPI it is a straight miss sell. As for you if you were informed that PPI would be added and you took that to mean if you didn't have it you would not get a card then that is also a miss sell. Re submit you claims and if they refuse you have 6 months to take it to the Ombudsman. You will have a 70% chance of success of winning with the Ombudsman. This advice is given after watching the latest Martin Lewis Tv show all about PPI. Try and take a look on the ITV player

Good Luck

Insider101

Justice13075 wrote: »

It is not to late. If you husband put down he was self employed when he took out the card it is irrelevant if he ticked the box for PPI it is a straight miss sell. As for you if you were informed that PPI would be added and you took that to mean if you didn't have it you would not get a card then that is also a miss sell. Re submit you claims and if they refuse you have 6 months to take it to the Ombudsman. You will have a 70% chance of success of winning with the Ombudsman. This advice is given after watching the latest Martin Lewis Tv show all about PPI. Try and take a look on the ITV player

Good Luck

I'm not sure if this is a wonderfully disguised piece of sarcasm along the lines of "Martin Lewis said it so it must be true mustn't it". However, unfortunately it is nonsense. You CANNOT "resubmit your claim" as it is put above. The complaint was rejected, the OP had 6 months to go to FOS as set out under the law and did not do so. The case is now closed. Some lenders are voluntarily reviewing rejected cases, however, if this is not the case in the OP's instance then she cannot force them and has no access to FOS.

To the OP: I am not sure what you mean by your husband had one too. Does this mean he had an entirely separate credit card account with MBNA or that he was a secondary cardholder on your account? If the former then he can make his own complaint if he too feels the product was missold. If the latter then it is irrelevant as you were the main cardholder and hence you not he would be the insurer party.

Also, even if he does have his own account, it is not correct as claimed above to claim that if your husband put down that he was self employed it is a straight up missale. This would only be the case if the cover specifically excluded self employed which most of them don't. If it is just a case of the conditions changing then as a distance sale with no human involvement it would be up to him to decide whether the cover was right for him.

[Deleted User]

Odd the number of different posters who have suddenly taken to referencing Martin Lewis (some in almost every post they make).

Martin Lewis does encourage people not to rest on their laurels. However, he doesn't tell people that they continue to complain long after they have already been rejected.

The OP of this thread was rejected in 2010 and failed to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. Only if he had compelling new evidence not in his original complaint could he hope to have the case re-opened. Finding statements in the loft has seemingly galvanised the OP back into action, but the find is of no consequence and he can safely consign that paperwork back into storage or into the re-cycle bin.

Nearlyold

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Odd the number of different posters who have suddenly taken to referencing Martin Lewis (some in almost every post they make).

Martin Lewis does encourage people not to rest on their laurels. However, he doesn't tell people that they continue to complain long after they have already been rejected.

The OP of this thread was rejected in 2010 and failed to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. Only if he had compelling new evidence not in his original complaint could he hope to have the case re-opened. Finding statements in the loft has seemingly galvanised the OP back into action, but the find is of no consequence and he can safely consign that paperwork back into storage or into the re-cycle bin.

Martin said in last Friday's show that if you had complained before and your complaint was rejected and you had failed to refer it to FOS within 6 months all you needed to do was complain again and if you were rejected again you could then refer it to FOS - so it must be true mustn't it?

dunstonh

Nearlyold wrote: »

Martin said in last Friday's show that if you had complained before and your complaint was rejected and you had failed to refer it to FOS within 6 months all you needed to do was complain again and if you were rejected again you could then refer it to FOS - so it must be true mustn't it?

Remember that it is in his interests to campaign this way. Just look at the way MSE supported the highly flawed WASPI campaign (which wants the female state pension age to go back to 60). Its better marketing of his brand to support anything against the establishment rather than being objective and adding explanations.

Martin has said before that he has short segments and cant go into the detail often required and had to simplify things and keep it snappy and interesting for those watching/listening.

So, given the choice of correctly explaining the complaint rules or quickly telling the person to complain again, the latter will win.

That said, some banks have been quite poor on their record keeping and some earlier complaints that were rejected may not show on their systems and they may well consider it again. However, you are reliant on a lot of luck. Most will just refer back to their original decision and won't give permission to refer to the FOS as its timebarred.

Nearlyold

dunstonh wrote: »

Remember that it is in his interests to campaign this way. Just look at the way MSE supported the highly flawed WASPI campaign (which wants the female state pension age to go back to 60). Its better marketing of his brand to support anything against the establishment rather than being objective and adding explanations.

Martin has said before that he has short segments and cant go into the detail often required and had to simplify things and keep it snappy and interesting for those watching/listening.

So, given the choice of correctly explaining the complaint rules or quickly telling the person to complain again, the latter will win.

That said, some banks have been quite poor on their record keeping and some earlier complaints that were rejected may not show on their systems and they may well consider it again. However, you are reliant on a lot of luck. Most will just refer back to their original decision and won't give permission to refer to the FOS as its timebarred.

I was being tongue in cheek over the "it must be true" bit.

miss.average

than you to all for your quick responses.
the reason I got excited was that it was a different credit card number to the one I initially complained about ( older), and I still feel so disappointed that when I tried to claim I wasn't covered .
Hey ho
thanks again

[Deleted User]

If it's a different card than the one you complained about in 2010, then that's an entirely different complaint and you can indeed write to the Bank with your reasons for mis-sale. You won't need the statements unless the Bank says they have no records, so don't send any initially.

Nasqueron

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Odd the number of different posters who have suddenly taken to referencing Martin Lewis (some in almost every post they make).

Martin Lewis does encourage people not to rest on their laurels. However, he doesn't tell people that they continue to complain long after they have already been rejected.

The OP of this thread was rejected in 2010 and failed to refer his complaint to the Ombudsman. Only if he had compelling new evidence not in his original complaint could he hope to have the case re-opened. Finding statements in the loft has seemingly galvanised the OP back into action, but the find is of no consequence and he can safely consign that paperwork back into storage or into the re-cycle bin.

It is common on forums that have a post limit before you can add links to make genuine sounding posts essentially copy/pasting the same sort of texts regardless of validity, to bump up the post count so they can then spam. This particular poster has been on here since 2009 so it would not be the case but you do see it where a new poster will suddenly appear and run up their count with stuff that won't get seen as spam