PPI Claim - customer questionnaires

jwestacott

I have made a couple of PPI telephone claims, one with Barclaycard and one with MBNA. Barclaycard took my basic details over the phone and issued a proposed settlement within a week. However, MBNA took the same details then issued me with a Customer Questionnaire to complete in order to progress my claim. It's very detailed asking for my status on everything from employment type, partner details, savings and expenditure at the time the PPI state (16 years ago!). My question is, is it better to complete these questionnaires or not? I'm quite cynical in that I'm guessing they're looking for any minor detail to suggest why I might have needed PPI at the time.

Alice_Walker

If asked to it is essential to complete the form.

It sounds like Barclays paid out because your claim was within the range for an auto payout, basically it would cost them more to pay it than to defend a claim.

dunstonh

t's very detailed asking for my status on everything from employment type, partner details, savings and expenditure at the time the PPI state (16 years ago!). My question is, is it better to complete these questionnaires or not?

it can help your complaint if you fill in the form as it allows them to look at your circumstances and see if there were another issue that you may not be aware of.

I'm quite cynical in that I'm guessing they're looking for any minor detail to suggest why I might have needed PPI at the time.

If you are putting in a fraudulent complaint then that is possible as the facts may contradict your allegations.

[Deleted User]

Alice_Walker wrote: »

I basically it would cost them more to pay it than to defend a claim.

I'm sure you mean the reverse here..

If it would cost them more to pay it than to defend it, then they would surely defend it..;)

jwestacott

Thanks all.

One other things Barclaycard said in their letter was "where statements are missing we have estimated how much you were charged for PPI based on your transaction behaviour from statements we do have available". To me this infers they will pay a relative sum for the period where they do not have statements because they relate to over 6 years ago (1995-2001 in fact). However, nothing other than the actual PPI for the statements they do have has been paid. When I questioned this I was told 'it was probably included somewhere, but couldn't tell me where' and if I didn't agree with the amount then to go to the ombudsman. How can they make this statement then not include a related payment? Is this standard in the hope I wouldn't work out the figures myself?

Jayne

[Deleted User]

As the bank have told you, if you remain dissatisfied refer the complain to to the Ombudsman who will judge whether the Bank have acted fairly when awarding monies from periods where statements are missing.
As a general rule of thumb, if you were a large spender and paid a lot of PPI on statements they do have then you'll receive far more in redress than someone who often paid off the balance and so incurred little or no PPI.
Since we are not privy to your credit card spending habits, no one here can comment further...

dunstonh

". To me this infers they will pay a relative sum for the period where they do not have statements because they relate to over 6 years ago (1995-2001 in fact).

That is the requirement. They look at the spending habits in the years they do have available. If you were not borrowing money on the card (i.e. paying it off each month) in the earliest months they do have available then it would suggest you were not borrowing in the months they dont have available. So, they would add nothing. Whereas if you were borrowing in those earliest months, they would apply a refund on a similar basis going backwards.

This can result in people getting paid extra when they didnt actually pay any PPI and also the reverse where people perhaps borrowed in the years they dont have statements but didnt in the years they did have statements. That is just luck of the draw.

WatchMan

Alice_Walker wrote: »

It sounds like Barclays paid out because your claim was within the range for an auto payout, basically it would cost them more to pay it than to defend a claim.

I don't think this is true. Some business's may do some kind of analysis and only defend cases where it is worthwhile doing so. But my experience tells me that this isn't very common.

I've seen lots of instances where the actual compensation figure would be fairly low, but the case is defended.

Also Barclays, and a few of the other bigger businesses, have group accounts with the FOS. So they don't pay case fees on individual cases.

Alice_Walker

WatchMan wrote: »

I don't think this is true. Some business's may do some kind of analysis and only defend cases where it is worthwhile doing so. But my experience tells me that this isn't very common.

I've seen lots of instances where the actual compensation figure would be fairly low, but the case is defended.

Also Barclays, and a few of the other bigger businesses, have group accounts with the FOS. So they don't pay case fees on individual cases.

My information comes directly from Barclays. They don't have any reason to make it up!

(To add, there still has to be some grounds for complaint, they're not just giving out money without any checks. I assumed that would be obvious.)

[Deleted User]

Alice_Walker wrote: »

My information comes directly from Barclays. They don't have any reason to make it up!

Yeah auto-payouts are common for all the banks and it's always a business decision based on comparing the likely cost of defending the complaint against simply paying it. The result is that some not very compelling cases have been upheld.

WatchMan

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yeah auto-payouts are common for all the banks and it's always a business decision based on comparing the likely cost of defending the complaint against simply paying it. The result is that some not very compelling cases have been upheld.

In which case, this doesn't seem to be a policy which is uniformly applied.

I wonder how much it actually costs them to defend a case.