Barclaycard Reject

Adam1V

Following a letter recieved from Barclaycard where they've suggested I may have been misold PPI and I was free to make a complaint I've given it some thought and decided to pursue with a complaint for the main reasons that I was not aware I was taking out PPI during the point of sale back in 2004 and on reflection of my circumstances believe it wasnt suitably required.

Barclaycard have written back and rejected the complaint on the basis that The PPI cover was taken out in my local branch which means at the point of sale advice would have been given..
However I struggle to beleive this as I would outright refused the cover had I actually been aware of what was being sold.

Im in the process of replying with some reasons of why im unable to accept their rejection and wondered if anyone else had any further thoughts or comments to add;

1. First and foremost, I stand by the fact I was not aware at the time I was being sold a PPI policy.
2. You’ve suggested advice was given whilst taking out this policy without providing any evidence to confirm this was the case.
I do not believe this to be true and do not believe Barclays provided advice that was altogether clear, fair and not misleading to allow me to make a suitably informed decision.
If this was true, I would not have taken the PPI policy out due to having other funds available (savings), sick pay entitlement in place, having no pre-existing medical conditions and viewing the low credit limit as a minimal risk to my financial circumstances.
3. I would like to know on what grounds Barclaycard recommended the sale of PPI and what steps you took to ensure it was suitable for my needs?
Simply stating I was “eligible for the sale” seems very unprofessional and not a reason to include the PPI cover.
4. I can partly accept some responsibility for not checking my monthly statements in detail, however such a small charge may not have rang any alarm bells.


Has anyone else experienced anything similar?
Im not expecting them to budge....

Adam

dunstonh

1. First and foremost, I stand by the fact I was not aware at the time I was being sold a PPI policy.

What proof do you have to support that?
The PPI has appeared on your statements every time you borrowed money over the last 12 years. So, why is it only now that you are complaining?
This is an issue of credibility. People being charged something they didnt agree tend to complain quicker than 12 years. The longer time goes on, the less credible your complaint on this point is.

2. You’ve suggested advice was given whilst taking out this policy without providing any evidence to confirm this was the case.
I do not believe this to be true and do not believe Barclays provided advice that was altogether clear, fair and not misleading to allow me to make a suitably informed decision.
If this was true, I would not have taken the PPI policy out due to having other funds available (savings), sick pay entitlement in place, having no pre-existing medical conditions and viewing the low credit limit as a minimal risk to my financial circumstances.

Semantics. All they are saying here is that there in branch sales process would have been applied. It is not a rejection reason unless you said it was sold a different way or that they failed to do something.
The assumption is that the sales process would have been followed unless there is evidence available to suggest otherwise.

Why would someone with funds available on savings borrow money on a credit card? That would be bad money management and unusual.
Having no pre-existing medical conditions helps them, not you as it eliminates a complaint reason.

3. I would like to know on what grounds Barclaycard recommended the sale of PPI and what steps you took to ensure it was suitable for my needs?
Simply stating I was “eligible for the sale” seems very unprofessional and not a reason to include the PPI cover.

1 - they are not financial advisers and are not required to work to the same standards advisers are.
2 - they are required to make sure you are eligible. Not whether it was suitable.

4. I can partly accept some responsibility for not checking my monthly statements in detail, however such a small charge may not have rang any alarm bells.

Then you need to improve your money management.

Im not expecting them to budge....

It is difficult for any of us without access to audit trails and documentary evidence to offer comment. We are limited only to what you tell us. So, on that basis, what you have told us indicates no wrongdoing by Barclays. Or at least, no wrongdoing that is likely to be evidenced enough to result in a successful complaint.

If you disagree with the outcome, you are refer it to the FOS.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

Why would someone with funds available on savings borrow money on a credit card? That would be bad money management and unusual.

Certainly not unusual. Lots of people with money set aside will also have credit cards.

However their are two problems with savings when it comes to looking at PPI complaints. 1) Often, the savings are set aside for something else. 2) While people will have what they consider to be a fair amount put away, it doesn't amount to much when comparing to the benefit a PPI policy provides.

dunstonh wrote: »

2 - they are required to make sure you are eligible. Not whether it was suitable.

By Barclay's own admission, this was an advised sale. So they were required to check for suitability.

Adam1V wrote:

--xx--

Your points 1,2 and 4 aren't really going to win.

Your best bet is point 3. However it relies on you demonstrating that the policy wasn't value for money for you. So have a think - if you were out of work for a long time through illness or unemployment, how would you have made your repayments?

It's probably going to be the case that you'll have to show you had a decent chunk of money put aside, or very good sick pay from your employer.

dunstonh

By Barclay's own admission, this was an advised sale. So they were required to check for suitability.

The word advice does not always mean advice in the regulatory sense. If they meant full advice process then why did thy later say eligibility only. Eligibility being the non-advised process requirement.

Certainly not unusual. Lots of people with money set aside will also have credit cards.

However their are two problems with savings when it comes to looking at PPI complaints. 1) Often, the savings are set aside for something else. 2) While people will have what they consider to be a fair amount put away, it doesn't amount to much when comparing to the benefit a PPI policy provides.

I take your point. My phrasing should really perhaps have said that people with sufficient savings, such as a suitable emergency fund of 6-12 months income or expenditure, dont normally borrow on the card. That is the sort of level that is considered ideal for people to use the "alternative savings" route. Also, there would often be a requirement to prove alternative savings were there through provision of a statement if the account was held elsewhere.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

The word advice does not always mean advice in the regulatory sense. If they meant full advice process then why did thy later say eligibility only. Eligibility being the non-advised process requirement.

The letter would've said more. The OP has just quoted part of it.

Most Barclays branch and phone sales are considered to be advised sales (in the regulatory sense).

dunstonh

Most Barclays branch and phone sales are considered to be advised sales (in the regulatory sense).

How the hell did they slip up on that one?
They would have to uphold virtually all of them if they were as there is no way they could meet advice standards on most of their sales.

edit: just read some FOS outcomes and you are right. They class them as advised but it appears to be a limited advice process specific to just that area. That explains why the rejections are still high.

Here is a useful snippet from a FOS decision which may aid when taking the complaint further:

Firstly I think Barclays did enough to make it clear the cover was optional. While the credit
card application was computer generated, the form clearly shows a Yes and No option for
PPI. The Yes box has been selected with a cross.

So because the sale took place during a meeting and the form indicates there was a choice,
which Mrs S was able to review and consider before signing, I think it’s likely the selection
reflected the conversation had about PPI.

I note Mrs S has said PPI was automatically added and she just signed the application. And I
accept this is possible. But I’ve not seen enough information or evidence to fairly say this is
more likely what happened.

Barclays says it advised Mrs S to take out PPI. So I’ve looked at the complaint on this basis.
Having done so, I think the policy was suitable for her. I say this because:
 Mrs S was eligible (she qualified) for the cover;
 she was employed and in good health, so based on what we know about policies sold at
this time she wasn’t affected by any of the important exclusions or limitations of cover eg
pre-existing medical conditions or unusual employment terms;
 Mrs S didn’t have any sick pay or other means to fall back on in the event she couldn’t
work because of ill health or if she lost her job. So I think she had a need for cover; and
 the policy was competitively priced and offered a good level of cover, so I think it offered
a valuable benefit to her.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

How the hell did they slip up on that one?
They would have to uphold virtually all of them if they were as there is no way they could meet advice standards on most of their sales.

The main reason the uphold rate is lower than you'd expect is because of this snippet from the decision you found (my highlights):

 the policy was competitively priced and offered a good level of cover, so I think it offered
a valuable benefit to her.[/I]

In that case, it seems that the consumer had no sick pay. But often, even people with reasonable levels of sick pay could've still found the policy useful.

Adam1V

dunstonh wrote: »

Why would someone with funds available on savings borrow money on a credit card?

There are many reasons for this, what if my money was tided up in ISAs, property, other assets which I generally wouldnt touch unless of emergencies?

dunstonh wrote: »

 Mrs S didn’t have any sick pay or other means to fall back on in the event she couldn’t
work because of ill health or if she lost her job. So I think she had a need for cover; and
 the policy was competitively priced and offered a good level of cover, so I think it offered
a valuable benefit to her.[/I]

Surely this is almost the opposite to my situation, in that I had access to other means of payment (savings, sick pay, etc)? Whilst I would have been eligible, I would not have seen a strong requirement for it?

Im not sure what impact it would have, but from memory I think the original credit limit was £700 at point of taking out the PPI cover.

To confirm the exact wording;
In making my decision I have reviewed your application form, the information you have provided and our internal system eviedence.
Following my investigation I have identified that your application for PPI was made in branch. This means that at the point of applying for PPI we gave you advice on taking out this policy.
This policy was started on ......

I am a little unsure about their wording, suggesting I had applied for it when in actual fact it would have been sold to me - in my opinion.

WatchMan

Adam1V wrote: »

There are many reasons for this, what if my money was tided up in ISAs, property, other assets which I generally wouldnt touch unless of emergencies?

I don't think this helps.

What would you rather do to meet your card repayments if you're off ill or made redundant:

1) Raid your ISA and sell property; or
2) Take out a fairly cheap policy designed for this very purpose and which will pay out for up to a year.

That why I said above that savings aren't really useful when it comes to PPI complaints.

Sick pay is different - but it needs to match or beat the 12 months worth of cover the policy would provide.

dunstonh

There are many reasons for this, what if my money was tided up in ISAs, property, other assets which I generally wouldnt touch unless of emergencies?

I am referring to savings. Not property or other assets. The OP said savings. Property and other illiquid assets would not count as savings.

Adam1V

Thanks for the input above.

I would like to respond back to Barclaycard in the first instance.
Whilst not all of the points above are entirely useful, do you still think its worth including or should I be adding more information to #3?