Privacy Guard

Goodintentions

I have been asked by my Mum to help her sort out probate etc. after my Step Dad recently passed away. Whilst looking through some statements I noticed a direct debit to Privacy Guard for £6.99. On further investigation it would appear that this was for Identity Fraud Protection, and has been paid monthly for at least the last 3 years (statements went back to 2014), although I know it would be longer.
My mum didn't really know what it was. Would she have a case for asking for a refund? Also, does anyone have a template for this sort of refund. TIA

[Deleted User]

She could ask. But there's no reason she would get a refund.

Nasqueron

Do remember when doing complaints on behalf of the deceased you must rely on factual things such as it not being suitable - you cannot use "personal" reasons like he didn't know about it or didn't want it as he's not there to support this argument (he may have wanted it).

There is no template you can use, just write to them and explain the reasons for why you feel it was not suitable and see what they say

Condolences for your loss

dunstonh

Would she have a case for asking for a refund?

Nothing you have said suggests any reason for a refund. Why do you think they should?

Also, does anyone have a template for this sort of refund.

No. There are no templates on asking a company to pay you money for no reason.

Goodintentions

dunstonh wrote: »

Nothing you have said suggests any reason for a refund. Why do you think they should?

.....because the Banks have sold these policies after scaremongering, according to Martin Lewis?! And because the banks already have cover for fraud, and there is no reason to have one of these policies? Perhaps?

dunstonh

.....because the Banks have sold these policies after scaremongering, according to Martin Lewis?!

Martin Lewis is not grounds for complaint. Plus, the executor of the estate is unable to make such an allegation as they were not present during the sale. A complaint can be made by the executor but it needs to be for factual reasons and not hypothetical.

Nasqueron

Goodintentions wrote: »

.....because the Banks have sold these policies after scaremongering, according to Martin Lewis?! And because the banks already have cover for fraud, and there is no reason to have one of these policies? Perhaps?

If Privacy Guard is like CPP (as in covers the same sort of thing which they have to cover anyway) you could try that angle. I'd establish what it covers and see if it was worthless or not

societys_child

Goodintentions wrote: »

.....because the Banks have sold these policies after scaremongering, according to Martin Lewis?!

lol . . . . . .