Store cards help

Noleen

Could some please tell me how i know if i have ppi on my new look store and argos card. I literally dont know what im looking for and have no paper statements. I havent the foggiest idea about reclaiming so every piece of advice is greatlly appreciated. If someone could give me a step by step guide too would be amazing!

Mersey_2

From memory Ikano Bank are dealing with New Look store card PPI claims.


Ikano Bank AB
PO Box 10081
Nottingham
NG2 9LX
[EMAIL="customerservice@ikano.net"]customerservice@ikano.net[/EMAIL]


Santander are dealing with the liability from the then Arcadia Group of stores (Debenhams, Dorothy Perkins, Top Shop, Miss Selfridge etc).


You're best double checking first whether you have any old paperwork or bank statements, but if not the banks' PPI teams can often provide these over the 'phone by searching against your name and address at the time.


We can't tell you the reason you may have been mis-sold, but with store cards, unfortunately a lot of customers were not even informed that PPI was included when they were offered the card in-store. Ideally you would have been provided with a carbon copy of the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) before you left - and again ideally the box would have been ticked by yourself if you'd wanted PPI. In general, PPI is unnecessary if you were a full-student at the time or self-employed.

DCFC79

Mersey

The OP hasnt mentioned about the arcadia group.


OP for argos you could call the argos store card team and ask them re ppi.

Dont you have access to statements online ?

Noleen

Yes i have access to my statements online but my new look one gives little information. I cant see anything that gives away any info about ppi. I think i remember signing a carbon footprint thing when i signed up and i was a student at the time! Im talking 5 years ago! Ill need to have a check on my argos statements now. Do i just get in touch with the places and ask for a ppi information request?

McKneff

If you see nothinh saying Ppi Protection on any statement on a separate line then you dont have it.

If you indeed have it, you dont claim it back just because you paid it. You have to make a complaint, state the nature of your complaint and provide proof of this...

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

We can't tell you the reason you may have been mis-sold, but with store cards, unfortunately a lot of customers were not even informed that PPI was included when they were offered the card in-store. Ideally you would have been provided with a carbon copy of the CCA (Consumer Credit Agreement) before you left - and again ideally the box would have been ticked by yourself if you'd wanted PPI. In general, PPI is unnecessary if you were a full-student at the time or self-employed.

It's important to be factual on these points.

PPI was not "unnecessary" if you were a student, it was worthless unless you were working more than 16 hours a week as it didn't cover students thus was miss-sold.

If you were self-employed, contrary to the claims company myths, PPI was perfectly useful unless the conditions to claim on it were too onerous (the FOS has ruled on these already so it's already established) e.g. if it required a business to be dissolved - most PPI did cover the self-employed so you'd need to clarify if the policy would or wouldn't have been considered ok

Couple of examples of FOS rulings about self-employed PPI:

Complaint upheld as dental technician would have to cease trading to claim

Case study 17 includes examples of onerous and not onerous

[Deleted User]

Noleen wrote: »

I cant see anything that gives away any info about ppi. I think i remember signing a carbon footprint thing when i signed up and i was a student at the time! Im talking 5 years ago!

Since five years ago was the height of PPI mis-selling complaints, I'd be very surprised if you have any PPI as most lenders had ceased providing it by then.
They certainly wouldn't have been signing up students in 2012 and the audit trail would be robust in the unlikely event PPI was still being sold.
Sounds like you are wasting your time and I certainly would not spend any money chasing this....

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's important to be factual on these points.

PPI was not "unnecessary" if you were a student, it was worthless unless you were working more than 16 hours a week as it didn't cover students thus was miss-sold.

It certainly was unnecessary ie not needed. Hence the mis-sales to students. Indeed you go on to say it was mis-sold to students!


Perhaps 'unnecessary' is another one like 'hearsay' {text removed by MSE Forum Team}

Nasqueron

{text removed by MSE Forum Team}

Unnecessary means you don't need it, not that it's worthless because you could never claim on it. They are 2 completely different words, I am correct, you are wrong, simple as that.

I suppose I could, once again, copy out the legal definition of hearsay which is the one I and the legal system use, {text removed by MSE Forum Team}

Cambridge dictionary:

information that you have heard but do not know to be true

Merriam-Webster

something heard from another person : something that you have been told

Legal Dictionary

Testimony based on what a witness has heard from another person, of which he has no personal knowledge or experience.
Unverified information acquired from another person, which is not part of one’s own knowledge.

When you are reporting what you claim to have been told and have no documentary evidence to back it up, it's hearsay and has less waste.

e.g. If you claim you were told by the bank staff you needed to have PPI but the bank produces evidence of a sales script from the time which shows PPI was to be offered then their evidence is key, your report of the incident is thus worthless

Mersey_2

Your second para is plain nonsense. You fail to understand the legal use and you also appear not to even understand what other person or third party means. I assumed you were previously choosing to not, but I now realise you simply don't understand what a witness/third party are, hence your misunderstanding of a simple definition.


Precisely, that legal dictionary definition is accurate. I can only assume you are failing to read all of it ("of which he has no direct knowledge or experience") - a claimant will never be a third party not present.


As described previously to you in detail - in all civil matters, both a claimant (usually an individual) and defendant (eg bank or firm or individual) provide their direct lay oral or written evidence in pre-lit or litigated matters. Neither are third parties.


If what you want to exist, was the state of play, no claimant's direct evidence would ever be taken into account in any civil claim and only the bank's/defendant's would. Ah, I now see why you want the claimant's evidence to be hearsay in every single case!


It is not thankfully, as we have equality of arms in all civil matters in the UK.


If a partner or other third party not present reported what was said at the time as purported evidence, then yes that would be hearsay - and may not be allowed in a claim.


The current position was described to yourself in two previous threads. Others even explained to you why the claimant's evidence is not hearsay as they were present - in the bank/store or on the phone with the bank rep - and you were in a minority of one. As you failed to reply to either thread after their explanations, I had hoped that you now realised your mistake. It would appear not. I am frankly astounded if you STILL honestly believe all claimants' direct evidence is hearsay.



Your penultimate para is plain wrong. A claimant's account is always their direct lay oral evidence and can never be deemed mere hearsay. (However, if a relative reported what they thought they heard was said, then yes, that would be hearsay). Understand the difference yet?

As your final para - that across the board assertion is also wrong. Each claim turns on its own merits. The civil burden - again explained to you previously when you wrongly thought claimants had to satisfy some higher burden to 'prove everything' - is based on the balance of probabilities and so both sides' evidence has equal weight. A claimant's account is not "worthless." Yes, documentary evidence such as contemporaneous notes will add weight to either side if they have this. But merely a script of what should happen will not negate all claims.


After all, if what should have happened had done so, there would have been no mis-selling of any packaged accounts, PPI, loans etc. In the words of Martin Lewis to a Parliamentary Select Committee, "Well if the banks had behaved themselves, there probably wouldn't have been the need for my site."

-taff

WHy don't you two start a separate thread where you can argueall this again by yourselves?
You keep de-railing posts with this and it's not helpful to the OP.