PPI Claim Rejected, then refunded, then reversed

Mark381

Hi everyone,


I hope some of the experts here can take a look over this sequence of events for me.


1. My credit card PPI claim was rejected by Capital One
2. The claim was rejected by the Ombudsman
3. Several weeks later, a series of transactions appeared on my account over the span of a few days and are as follows:


-A large CREDIT named "PPI Plevin credit"
-Another significant CREDIT named "PPI Plevin BB Goodwill"
-A DEBIT named "Tax Withheld on Plevin BB"
-A very large DEBIT (much more than the two credits combined) named "Purchase Adjustment"
-My account then goes into the red and I am charged an over-limit fee as a result of the large debit
-A CREDIT named "Plevin Tax reversal"
-A DEBIT named "Plevin ERC reversal"
-A DEBIT named "Plevin Finance charge reversal"
-A CREDIT named "Credit to Purchase balance"


After all transactions I am left at my original balance, minus a fee for temporarily going over my limit due to the large debits they transacted.


My questions are:
1. If the claim was rejected why did they go through all those refunds and reversals?
2. How can they charge me an over-limit fee when it was them who put the account in the red as a result of all those credits and reversals?
3. What does it mean "credit to purchase balance"? Have they sold my debt to a third party? My account has always been in good standing and I always make my payments on time and have never had any issues other than trying to claim back PPI that I believed was mis-sold.


Thanks for any help on this.

IAmWales

1. Human error. We all make mistakes sometimes.
2. If you contact them and explain what has happened I'm sure they'll reimburse the charge. They might even give you a little extra to apologise.
3. It's an adjustment, a credit to your account. Nothing to suggest they have sold on your debt.

[Deleted User]

Looks like admin confusion. Ask them to remove the fee and any over limit marker.

Your account hasn't been sold. It's a credit adjustment.

[Deleted User]

It's an annoying error, but one I would expect the bank to swiftly rectify and compensate you for.

You don't have to worry that your debt has been "sold"

Mark381

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your answers. Is there any way for me to find out why the Ombudsman decided in their favour, ie. what Capital One provided to them to convince them they were right and I was wrong?

IAmWales

Mark381 wrote: »

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your answers. Is there any way for me to find out why the Ombudsman decided in their favour, ie. what Capital One provided to them to convince them they were right and I was wrong?

They should have explained their reasons in the decision letter. If they didn't give them a call.

[Deleted User]

Mark381 wrote: »

Is there any way for me to find out why the Ombudsman decided in their favour, ie. what Capital One provided to them to convince them they were right and I was wrong?

You should be supplied with the full details of the adjudication by the Ombudsman very shortly.

Do note, though, that the Bank did not necessarily "provide" them with anything at all if your complaint was an unprovable allegation.

Nearlyold

As above the Ombudsman's letter should explain, were your complaint reasons all genuinely your own thoughts or did you use a template letter? The latter can sometimes catch you out as many of the "template complaints" I've seen often have contradictory complaint reasons such as "I was told I had to have it" and "it was added without my knowledge" its not possible for both to be true

Mark381

Thanks for the further replies. To answer the question, no I did not use any template. The information I provided was all genuine and my own thoughts. I did not know there were templates or help resources when I filed my complaint. I strongly believe PPI was added without my consent. I do have the original application form on which I stated that I did not want PPI. I sent this to the Ombudsman. Capital One claimed that I must have asked for it to be added to my account by phone but they were not able to provide any record of the phone call or any evidence of the supposed conversation.


The letter from the Ombudsman did not acknowledge that I implicitly declined PPI and that due to my circumstances I would not have needed such insurance. They just gave me what looked very much like a copy&paste telling me that they thought I was not mis-sold PPI. Their decision came back in just a few days so they certainly can't have spent much time looking into the case, despite initially telling me that it would take months because of a huge backlog.


Capital One have been very sketchy with all this PPI stuff. When I first asked them to cancel it they assured me it was cancelled, yet it still appeared on subsequent statements.


Oh well, the mighty Ombudsman has spoken (via a generic copy-paste response) and that's all there is to it. I will be paying off the account and closing it asap and will never deal with Capital One again.


Thanks so much for everyone's help, I really appreciate it. Thank goodness there is such a wonderful resource as this.

-taff

You can refer your complaint to an actual Ombudsman not an adjudicator if you're still unhappy. This doesn't mean they will rule in your favour though.

Your complaint is very weak. You saw on your statements a charge for insurance but didn't cancel it.

And you can't implicitly decline it. You explicitly decline it.

[Deleted User]

Mark381 wrote: »

I strongly believe PPI was added without my consent.

Unfortunately for you, this is something you'll never be able to prove or anyone else is likely to find evidence of. In truth, it's far more likely that you've simply forgotten about the PPI or never read any of the documentation you signed your agreement to. It's a myth sponsored by Claim Companies that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of the customer.

You can certainly appeal the initial FOS decision and an actual Ombudsman will look at your complaint. However, your chances of success are slim with only that reason.