Capital One say it was not missold

m0lr

Hi,

I had contacted Capital One using their template. The main reason why I feel it was missold is that at the time I was a civil servant and am covered for 12 months (the same period that PPI would have been payable for) for sickness. I did tick the box on the original form which they sent me but I believe this should not make any difference.

They are asking me to wait for 6 months as there is a pending case called Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance after which a final response will be sent. This is about undisclosed commission and not relevant to my case.

So, what should I do? The reason I gave was the same and valid reason that I said for Barclays who agreed on all three of my claims with them. I find it difficult to believe that Capital One see this as a different claim but they make reference to this:

They stated: "We don't believe any savings or employer sickness benefits were significant factors in the purchasing decision." This is the complete opposite of the truth.

I have read several threads which state I should either contact the ombudsman or write back. If I write back how do I word it? This does seem like I have a very good case. What do others think?

Any advice is gratefully received.

dunstonh

The main reason why I feel it was missold is that at the time I was a civil servant and am covered for 12 months (the same period that PPI would have been payable for) for sickness. I did tick the box on the original form which they sent me but I believe this should not make any difference.

It does make a difference.
non-advised cases have a lower level of consumer protection than advised cases. Advised cases not only have to check eligibility and suitability, they also have to consider financial need.

as yours was non-advised, they only have to make sure you were eligible and they would have paid out in the event of a claim. Your 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay would not prevent the PPI from paying out.

So, what should I do? The reason I gave was the same and valid reason that I said for Barclays who agreed on all three of my claims with them. I find it difficult to believe that Capital One see this as a different claim but they make reference to this:

Doesnt matter. The FOS have been rejecting complaints for people using the same reason you did. You cant be that general on complaints. Barclays may have paid out as an auto-payout or because they had other failures or maybe theirs were not postal but branch or telephone sold. They dont tell you why they are upholding. So, you never know what they found or why they are doing it.

They stated: "We don't believe any savings or employer sickness benefits were significant factors in the purchasing decision." This is the complete opposite of the truth.

So, why did you choose to have it then?

I have read several threads which state I should either contact the ombudsman or write back. If I write back how do I word it? This does seem like I have a very good case. What do others think?

If it is non-advised and the PPI would have paid out, then you do not have a strong case. If it was advised, then you do have a stronger case. Either way, you take it to the FOS if you disagree with them. No point arguing the toss with Cap One.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

It does make a difference.
non-advised cases have a lower level of consumer protection than advised cases. Advised cases not only have to check eligibility and suitability, they also have to consider financial need.

as yours was non-advised, they only have to make sure you were eligible and they would have paid out in the event of a claim.

That's not entirely correct. Capital One had to provide clear and not mis-leading information.

One of the biggest downfalls with credit card PPI is the way that the costs of the policy were disclosed. So, in these cases, sick pay, savings or other ways of making repayments are very important.

Whether the OP's sick pay makes a difference depends on how much the PPI cost and the potential benefit. FOS has issued some decisions which suggest that older policies were relatively expensive compared to their benefits - and in these cases upheld the complaint where the consumer had sick pay of six months or more.

Capital One probably won't have given any of this detail - so the OP won't be able to determine for himself whether or not Capital One's response is fair. If he does want to take things further, he can go to FOS.

dunstonh

That's not entirely correct. Capital One had to provide clear and not mis-leading information.

The information has to be clear but they do not have to check financial need. The op seems to be complaining on the basis that he had no financial need. That doesn't apply to non-advised cases as long as the PPI would have paid out in addition to employer benefits.

Whether the OP's sick pay makes a difference depends on how much the PPI cost and the potential benefit. FOS has issued some decisions which suggest that older policies were relatively expensive compared to their benefits - and in these cases upheld the complaint where the consumer had sick pay of six months or more.

True.

Capital One probably won't have given any of this detail - so the OP won't be able to determine for himself whether or not Capital One's response is fair. If he does want to take things further, he can go to FOS.

And interestingly, a few years ago, Capital One uphold rates at the FOS were very low. Around 1 in 10 only. Now its running at 7 in 10. Nobody really knows what the outcome will be. The op doesnt as the complaint is not strong and is reliant on another failing (which Cap One say there isnt). We don't know as we have no files, audit trail or data to look at and just a small bit of info. The only way to know for sure is to refer it to the FOS.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

The information has to be clear but they do not have to check financial need. The op seems to be complaining on the basis that he had no financial need. That doesn't apply to non-advised cases as long as the PPI would have paid out in addition to employer benefits.

I see where you're coming from. However I think that the OP's complaint point is fine.

Capital One didn't have to establish a financial need - and if it turns out that the policy's benefits were good versus the cost, then I doubt the outcome would change regardless of OP's sick pay.

However they had to give clear enough info for the OP to work out if the policy would be useful. This almost certainly didn't happen.

If you look at FOS decisions, they'll say things like "he doesn’t appear to have had a strong need for the policy"

At the end of the day, we're probably agreeing and just saying things differently.

m0lr

At the end of the day, both your posts are very useful. I think a referral to FOS is worth looking at.

Thank you WatchMan and dunstonh

[Deleted User]

All PPI complaints should be upheld automatically unless they've been paid out on. PPI is not good value for money and it is scandalous how this has been miss-sold on this grand scale.
Just pay out everyone once and for all and be done with it!

dunstonh

Deleted_User wrote: »

All PPI complaints should be upheld automatically unless they've been paid out on. PPI is not good value for money and it is scandalous how this has been miss-sold on this grand scale.
Just pay out everyone once and for all and be done with it!

That is just silly. Certain types of PPI are good value and important and still retailed today. However, you want all the good firms to have to pay out (and possibly bankrupt them) because of mainly the banks and some of the other lenders.

takman

Deleted_User wrote: »

All PPI complaints should be upheld automatically unless they've been paid out on. PPI is not good value for money and it is scandalous how this has been miss-sold on this grand scale.
Just pay out everyone once and for all and be done with it!

Sounds like your another person who misbought PPI without doing any research before you ticked the box!

magpiecottage

Deleted_User wrote: »

All PPI complaints should be upheld automatically unless they've been paid out on. PPI is not good value for money

That is how ALL insurance works. The insurance company needs to make a profit - and before it can it also has to meet not only the cost of claims but running costs (which includes compliance and FOS fees).

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

The insurance company needs to make a profit - and before it can it also has to meet not only the cost of claims but running costs (which includes compliance and FOS fees).

To be fair, the PPI scandal is basically that many many people purchased insurance that was guaranteed 100% profit because it would never have paid out!

Even the policies which would have paid out were often "front loaded" onto loans so that they attracted exorbitant interest.

However, to suggest that every holder of PPI be refunded takes no account of the many policies which were fairly sold.