Egg card ppi

Lauralou79

Been reading a few old posts on this matter. My egg card was applied for online around 18/19 years ago. The debt was passed to barclaycard by egg when they sold everything off and has been paid off. Who do I contact regarding ppi? Barclaycard?

Thanks in advance

Nasqueron

Yes you'd complain to Barclaycard

If you applied online, unless it was a pre-ticked box (which is a miss-sale) then if you had PPI you would have chosen to have it (i.e. you ticked the box to say you wanted it) so it can't be miss-sold unless the wording is considered as "advice" - the FOS have ruled on this before so will know which banks would be under this

Placida

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you applied online, unless it was a pre-ticked box (which is a miss-sale) then if you had PPI you would have chosen to have it (i.e. you ticked the box to say you wanted it) so it can't be miss-sold unless the wording is considered as "advice" - the FOS have ruled on this before so will know which banks would be under this

Which FOS ruling are you referring to? I presume you are referring to to a FOS decision such as

"Egg has sent me copies of the internet pages Miss G would’ve seen when she applied. These include a page where the PPI was offered. Miss G was asked if she wanted Card Repayment Protection and was given two options – yes or no. The ‘yes’ option was already selected for her. If Miss G didn’t want the policy she needed to deselect the ‘yes’ option and select the ‘no’ option"

But the ombudsman has also upheld complaints where they didn’t think Egg gave clear enough information about the PPI policy sold online with a credit card.

“From experience, I don’t think Egg advised Miss J about the policy. Although it should still have given her enough information so she could make an informed decision for herself as to whether to take it.”

“I’ve decided to uphold Mr M’s complaint because I don’t think Egg clearly explained to him how much the policy cost and what benefit he would’ve received from it. I say this because I haven’t seen anything to show that Egg explained to Mr M that interest would be payable on the premium or that he would’ve had to keep paying the premiums whilst making a claim. These costs would’ve reduced the real benefit of the policy. I note the full terms and conditions would’ve been set out on the internet application. But these were very long and I don’t think it clearly highlighted the policy’s true cost and benefits so that Mr M could make an informed choice.”

“it seems possible Miss W could’ve bought the policy without navigating through all the sections. And even if she did go through them all, I think the exclusion for pre-existing medical conditions would’ve been easy to miss. This matters because Miss W had a medical condition when she bought the policy. And I don’t think she would’ve been covered for it.”

“Our adjudicator upheld Mr S’s complaint because Mr S was self-employed at the time the policy was taken out. The policy terms relating to self-employed people were restrictive and the adjudicator thought Egg hadn’t made this clear to Mr S at the time. If they had then he wouldn’t have taken the policy.”

Isn't part of your post misleading and incorrect?

-taff

Nope. The post is quite clear.
If anything was termed as 'advice' the FOS rule in favour of the complainant.

Nasqueron

Placida wrote: »

Which FOS ruling are you referring to? I presume you are referring to to a FOS decision such as

"Egg has sent me copies of the internet pages Miss G would’ve seen when she applied. These include a page where the PPI was offered. Miss G was asked if she wanted Card Repayment Protection and was given two options – yes or no. The ‘yes’ option was already selected for her. If Miss G didn’t want the policy she needed to deselect the ‘yes’ option and select the ‘no’ option"

But the ombudsman has also upheld complaints where they didn’t think Egg gave clear enough information about the PPI policy sold online with a credit card.

“From experience, I don’t think Egg advised Miss J about the policy. Although it should still have given her enough information so she could make an informed decision for herself as to whether to take it.”

“I’ve decided to uphold Mr M’s complaint because I don’t think Egg clearly explained to him how much the policy cost and what benefit he would’ve received from it. I say this because I haven’t seen anything to show that Egg explained to Mr M that interest would be payable on the premium or that he would’ve had to keep paying the premiums whilst making a claim. These costs would’ve reduced the real benefit of the policy. I note the full terms and conditions would’ve been set out on the internet application. But these were very long and I don’t think it clearly highlighted the policy’s true cost and benefits so that Mr M could make an informed choice.”

“it seems possible Miss W could’ve bought the policy without navigating through all the sections. And even if she did go through them all, I think the exclusion for pre-existing medical conditions would’ve been easy to miss. This matters because Miss W had a medical condition when she bought the policy. And I don’t think she would’ve been covered for it.”

“Our adjudicator upheld Mr S’s complaint because Mr S was self-employed at the time the policy was taken out. The policy terms relating to self-employed people were restrictive and the adjudicator thought Egg hadn’t made this clear to Mr S at the time. If they had then he wouldn’t have taken the policy.”

Isn't part of your post misleading and incorrect?

No

There are various parts to this:

Pre-ticked box (opt-out) = miss-sale
-- This was done by some banks for a certain period. The banks and period in question are long established.

Wording of the policy which makes it sounds like financial advice e.g. "we strongly recommend you take out this policy" = can be a miss-sale
-- FOS again has ruled on these policies, they're established e.g.

We were given screen shots of a policy being taken out over the internet. Although these are usually non-advised sales, one of the screen shots said "we strongly recommend you take out this PPI". We were satisfied from the consumer's account of the sale that he had placed some weight on this - and so we concluded that the sale was advised.

A customer choosing to opt-in to PPI i.e. saying they wanted it, where the sale was not advised and the wording of the policy is not considered as advice = not a miss-sale as nothing was sold, the customer miss-bought

Mr N's credit card application form asked him to tick a box if he wanted to take out a PPI policy. The form referred him to information enclosed with the application form about the terms and conditions of the policy (including the exclusion relating to pre-existing medical conditions). We concluded that the way the information was presented was sufficient to draw the exclusion to Mr N's attention

We were given screen shots of a policy being taken out over the internet. These showed that the financial business had set out the details of the policy for the consumer's consideration without any recommendation. We concluded that the sale was non-advised.

If you want to quote FOS case studies then cherry picking ones that only suit your argument is a fallacy