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.
📨 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!
PPI - Select Store card back from 2004
Nataliecharbos
Posts: 1 Newbie
Hi i was wondering if i could have some advise i had a store card back in 2004 for Select i dont seem to have any of the paper work for this particular card can anyone point me the right direction as to where i may find this information and if i can claim back ppi?
Has anyone claimed back from this card?
Many Thanks
Has anyone claimed back from this card?
Many Thanks
0
Comments
-
Even if you had paperwork, the sale is pre-regulation (2005) and the seller can refuse to consider any complaint on that basis alone.
Was "Select" a shop which no longer trades?0 -
Select store cards were sold to a lot of students around 2000 onwards.
PPI Questionnaires were sent to Glasgow until a couple of years ago; but RBS has now taken over the legacy liability for these matters, as the PPI Qs were wrongly just being returned to sender.
Indeed, RBS began repaying claimants' their PPI plus the 8% pa interest a couple of months ago, after the Ombudsman asked them to look at the matter again.
RBS, Southend-on-Sea are currently dealing with a backlog. It helps if you have the initial CCA or receipt. Proof of payment from an old bank statement will also help to prove the initial 'joining' payment.
From memory on another thread re Select a couple of months ago, when students purchased eg a suit for £70, 70p was added as the initial PPI. So even with 15 years' worth of interest, most Select claimants are only receiving around £30 - £35 back (they're assuming minimum monthly repayments as they have no records that far back); but RBS are also paying £20 - £50 to each, because they failed to consider these matters wen they took over Select's historic liabilities years ago.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Select store cards were sold to a lot of students around 2000 onwards.
PPI Questionnaires were sent to Glasgow until a couple of years ago; but RBS has now taken over the legacy liability for these matters, as the PPI Qs were wrongly just being returned to sender.
Indeed, RBS began repaying claimants' their PPI plus the 8% pa interest a couple of months ago, after the Ombudsman asked them to look at the matter again.
RBS, Southend-on-Sea are currently dealing with a backlog. It helps if you have the initial CCA or receipt. Proof of payment from an old bank statement will also help to prove the initial 'joining' payment.
From memory on another thread re Select a couple of months ago, when students purchased eg a suit for £70, 70p was added as the initial PPI. So even with 15 years' worth of interest, most Select claimants are only receiving around £30 - £35 back (they're assuming minimum monthly repayments as they have no records that far back); but RBS are also paying £20 - £50 to each, because they failed to consider these matters wen they took over Select's historic liabilities years ago.
Which is all well and good but Select sold this card in 2004 - before regulation started, as they were not regulated, this complaint can, in theory, be dismissed without redress or access to the FOS so the OP needs to be realistic that, as a pre-regulation sale with no paperwork to prove they paid PPI (especially given the OP is talking about wanting to reclaim without even knowing if they had it) this might not get anywhere.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 -
True. But as I understand it, the bulk of these cards were sold to students in the 2000 - 2003 period and yet RBS began paying out a couple of months ago. [Although I realise the main reason for this was probably their failure in the 2008 - 2013 period to respond to claims, even though they had taken over the historic liabilities.]
PPI wasn't needed by full-time undergraduates and of course, the bank should have responded to the PPI Qs. Indeed the FOS fined GE for mis-selling all these clothes' store, store cards from this period.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
True. But as I understand it, the bulk of these cards were sold to students in the 2000 - 2003 period and yet RBS began paying out a couple of months ago. [Although I realise the main reason for this was probably their failure in the 2008 - 2013 period to respond to claims, even though they had taken over the historic liabilities.]
PPI wasn't needed by full-time undergraduates and of course, the bank should have responded to the PPI Qs. Indeed the FOS fined GE for mis-selling all these clothes' store, store cards from this period.
What RBS choose to do is their own lookout - the fact we still own 73% or whatever and they are making losses (chalking up tax credits for the future profits) makes me think they are simply paying out to get the books clear and avoid any risk of it coming back to bite them even though they don't need to.
Until Jan 2005 these sales were not regulated, a 2004 sale was not regulated and thus the post 2005 rules on miss-selling do not apply to a store card - they could refuse it (not to say they will).
GE were fined by the FSA (now the FCA) not the FOS in 2007 - I'm not 100% sure if it relates to post-2005 sales though as pre-regulation sales were not, by definition, miss-sales if the regulation didn't apply at point of sale
PPI might have been needed, it just wouldn't pay out to students who were not working and thus was worthless
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 -
True again.
But surely the point of these forums for OPs is the practical reality.
Were Select store cards mis-sold and are RBS now repaying customers? Yes.
Yes, GE were fined £610,000 due to their "inadequate systems in selling PPI and misinformation provided due to inadequate staff training. PPI is always almost optional and GE failed to ensure staff informed customers of this fact."
By definition PPI can't have been needed by full-time students.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
True again.
But surely the point of these forums for OPs is the practical reality.
Were Select store cards mis-sold and are RBS now repaying customers? Yes.
Yes, GE were fined £610,000 due to their "inadequate systems in selling PPI and misinformation provided due to inadequate staff training. PPI is always almost optional and GE failed to ensure staff informed customers of this fact."
By definition PPI can't have been needed by full-time students.
All well and good but are RBS paying out on pre-regulation complaints or not?
A student working more than 16 hours a week alongside their study could have claimed on PPI - PPI would only be useless if the student was working less or not workingSam 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 -
RBS are now paying out on Select store cards taken out in 2000 onwards, so both. Although I assume most complaints were only received in recent months, after a feature in a Moneywise mag from memory. [Most were students as these were clothes' stores popular with suit purchases for Balls and graduations]Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.6K Spending & Discounts
- 245.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.7K Life & Family
- 259.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards