Egg Card

LeeU

As a long shot, and as a way off overpaying on a loan I took out to clear all my credit cards, I submitted a PPI complaint against an Egg card I previously had (closing balance was around £4500), it was closed 5 years ago.
I received a decision back from Barclays saying that the PPI hadn't been miss-sold as I had applied online and they hadn't advised me to take it.
I did put in the complaint that the PPI box was auto-selected and this lead me to believe that it would lower my chances of getting the card if I de-selected it.
Still refused so I have complained to the FOS, will keep this thread updated as I hear anything.

dunstonh

I did put in the complaint that the PPI box was auto-selected and this lead me to believe that it would lower my chances of getting the card if I de-selected it.

And is that true or did you make it up?

Barclays will know if their method was auto-select. We know from past posts and ombudsman decisions that Egg did not auto-select it and you needed to tick to have it. For example:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=69220

Barclays know whether what you say is true or not and they know the FOS auto-uphold pre-selected boxes. So, why would they reject it if it was pre-selected?

LeeU

From memory it was auto selected, this was from way before Barclays bought Egg.

Gavin14774

I did my Egg card application online, I have no idea what boxes I ticked but I have been refunded. My request was sent through Canada Square Operation though, not Barclays. I believe I took out my car in 2002.

[Deleted User]

LeeU wrote: »

From memory it was auto selected, this was from way before Barclays bought Egg.

There was only ever a narrow window of opportunity when pre-ticked boxes were used and obviously the Bank know when this was. Why did the Bank reject your complaint on the basis that you actively selected the insurance online yourself? The answer is that they clearly don't agree that your application included a pre-ticked PPI box.

With regard to your complaint to the Ombudsman, the rejection won't be overturned if pre-selection was not employed at the time you applied for the finance,

The time to check this was prior to any complaint. This could have been achieved by asking the Bank during what period (if any) "auto-selection" was employed.

Gavin14774 wrote: »

I did my Egg card application online, I have no idea what boxes I ticked but I have been refunded.

Your complaint result has no bearing on those of others, I'm afraid.

dunstonh

Gavin14774 wrote: »

I did my Egg card application online, I have no idea what boxes I ticked but I have been refunded. My request was sent through Canada Square Operation though, not Barclays. I believe I took out my car in 2002.

And you can see from the FOS decision on the one I linked that it was rejected for not being auto-ticked. That was in 2003.

The OP hasnt mentioned any other complaint reasons. So, we are just focusing on the one mentioned. A complaint can be upheld for any number of reasons.

LeeU

That was the main one but one other was that in the rejection letter from Barclays it stated:
"I have identified that your application for PPI was submitted online.
This means that at the point of applying for PPI we did not give you any advice. You made your own decision as to whether you required the policy and could have benefited from this."
Further down the same page, they then stated:
"I am satisfied that the PPI policy was suitable for your need at the time of sale because:
the information we provided was clear, fair and not misleading and we took adequate steps to ensure that you met the requirements of the policy and you would have been able to make a claim if you needed to do so. On this basis the sake of your PPI policy was appropriate."
My argument to this is two fold:
1. if the PPI box was auto-checked as I believe it was, then that was automatically miss-sold as it gave the impression that it was required/recommended.
2. the 2 paragraphs I've just copied from the rejection letter contradict each other, one states they didn't give advice then the other states that they took adequate steps to ensure I met the requirements of the policy. How can both be correct?

dunstonh

"I have identified that your application for PPI was submitted online.
This means that at the point of applying for PPI we did not give you any advice. You made your own decision as to whether you required the policy and could have benefited from this."

Online applications do not need to check for suitability. So, you can't use complaint reasons like "I didnt need it" or have a need for it.

1. if the PPI box was auto-checked as I believe it was, then that was automatically miss-sold as it gave the impression that it was required/recommended.

That is correct. It would be if that was the case. However, they don't agree it was.

2. the 2 paragraphs I've just copied from the rejection letter contradict each other, one states they didn't give advice then the other states that they took adequate steps to ensure I met the requirements of the policy. How can both be correct?

Adequate steps would be displaying enough info about the cover for you to make an informed decision.

[Deleted User]

Lack of diligent research prior to complaint may lead to the OP having "Egg" all over his face...