Canada Square Operations Egg Card Rejection

yarders_2

Hi,

this is my first attempt at claiming PPI and I used MSE help to do it.

I have now got back a letter from Canada Square Operations and they have rejected my claim for both policies of CRP and Plevin with the following reasons.

Decision A (CRP). After carrying out a full review of your account, I can confirm that you purchased PPI insurance on 05 June 2000. We note the allegations you have made regarding the sales of the policy, which are as follows:

• you were led to believe that your application was more likely to be successful if you took out the policy
• you felt presurred into taking out the policy
• no questions were asked regarding any existing policies you had elsewhere
• the policy was not suitable for your circumstances
• you did not require the policy

Whilst we do not accept all of your allegations we do acknowledge that there may have been flaws in our sales process. However, despite this I am not persuaded that any of these sales failings would have affected your decision to take out the PPI policy. This is because, taking into account your circumstances at the time of the sale which are disclosed in your questionnaire, it is clear that you had limited other means at the time of protecting your repayments.
You stated in section D.5 of the questionnaire that you would have received limited pay from your employer if you were off work due to an accident, sickness or if you were made redundant.
You stated in section D.6 that you had limited other means of making your repayments if you were unable to work through sickness, accident or unemployment.
You have also stated in your questionnaire that parents would have helped to make payment towards the account however we have not seen any evidence from the time of the sale to indicate that this was actually the case. Moreover, we do not consider that financial assistance from family/friends is in itself is a credible strategy for customers to guarantee that they are able to maintain repayments.
As a result, I am not in a position to uphold this element of your complaint.

Decision B (Plevin)
I have also considered the level of commission your policy attracted abd whether this was relevant to your claim. Similar issues were addressed in the Supreme Court case of Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (2014). This case clarified various aspects of the law relating to whether the rate of commission received by a lender would mean that the relationship between the borrower and the lender was unfair under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However parts of the Consumer Credit Act relating to unfair relationships are only applicable to accounts which continued to be open after 5 April 2008. As your account was closed on 18 August 2006, the Plevin case is not applicable to your complaint.

Could someone please help us understand this as we don't fully understand the reply? Is it worth going to the FOS and pursue this further

Many thanks.

[Deleted User]

yarders wrote: »

Could someone please help us understand this as we don't fully understand the reply?

Basically your PPI complaint has been rejected and it doesn't come into scope for a Plevin refund either.

What don't you understand exactly? It's written in plain English..

yarders wrote: »

this is my first attempt at claiming PPI

Not according to your earlier post from 2012; In this thread you considered a complaint while still in your DMP;
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/51755633#Comment_51755633

dunstonh

you were led to believe that your application was more likely to be successful if you took out the policy

Weak complaint reason - very few complaints succeed on that point.

you felt presurred into taking out the policy

Very weak complaint reason. If you complain within weeks of taking out the policy, then you have good credibility even without evidence. If you are talking years later, then you have no credibility on this point.

no questions were asked regarding any existing policies you had elsewhere

That is only required on advised sales. Not required on non-advised sales.

the policy was not suitable for your circumstances

This straddles advised/non-advised sales depending on the reasons you gave for it not being suitable. If you used a generic catchall reason such as "not suitable" but didnt say where it was not suitable and they could find no reason why it was not suitable then you would expect rejection on that point.

you did not require the policy

Their response seems to indicate that from the information you gave, you did require the policy. i.e. limited means to repay the debt. Limited sick pay from employer. All reasons why you should have PPI.

Could someone please help us understand this as we don't fully understand the reply? Is it worth going to the FOS and pursue this further

We do not have the audit trail of a case to suggest whether going to the FOS or not is a good idea. All we have is what you tell us. Your complaint reasons are generally weak and that wont change by going to the FOS. Their responses to your complaint reasons seem fair. If that is the correct, then there doesnt appear to be anything wrong with their response. However, you can perhaps clarify if that is the case or not.

yarders_2

Hi, thanks mate for the quick response!

Yes you are right I did ask the question but I never put in the claim so this is may first claim.

Cheers.

yarders_2

dunstonh wrote: »

Weak complaint reason - very few complaints succeed on that point.



Very weak complaint reason. If you complain within weeks of taking out the policy, then you have good credibility even without evidence. If you are talking years later, then you have no credibility on this point.



That is only required on advised sales. Not required on non-advised sales.



This straddles advised/non-advised sales depending on the reasons you gave for it not being suitable. If you used a generic catchall reason such as "not suitable" but didnt say where it was not suitable and they could find no reason why it was not suitable then you would expect rejection on that point.



Their response seems to indicate that from the information you gave, you did require the policy. i.e. limited means to repay the debt. Limited sick pay from employer. All reasons why you should have PPI.



We do not have the audit trail of a case to suggest whether going to the FOS or not is a good idea. All we have is what you tell us. Your complaint reasons are generally weak and that wont change by going to the FOS. Their responses to your complaint reasons seem fair. If that is the correct, then there doesnt appear to be anything wrong with their response. However, you can perhaps clarify if that is the case or not.

Thanks for the information, at the time I had thought had to take it be able to get the card so guess was my fault for not knowing better. It was an online option. I was entitled to full pay up to x number of weeks so don;t know where they get it was limited sick pay, I had been at that employer about 4 years at the time. And parents and savings were good at the time to.

Thanks for help us dunstonh!

[Deleted User]

yarders wrote: »

I was entitled to full pay up to x number of weeks so don;t know where they get it was limited sick pay,

Obviously, 'x' number of weeks is what the Bank regard as "limited". You'd need to be talking about at least six months full sick pay to have any chance of your complaint being upheld on that point.

bdmum1 wrote: »

I had been at that employer about 4 years at the time.

Not relevant to your complaint.

bdmum1 wrote: »

And parents and savings were good at the time to.

The insurance was to save you having to rely on your parents. You'll never get an uphold stating that. As for savings, exactly how much did you have (and can you prove it)?

Starling2015

Did you go to the FOS with this? I today have received the exact same letter and tbh don’t know if it’s worth the hassle pursuing as I really can’t remember too many details especially when it comes to the sick pay etc as it was such a long time ago. I know I was maternity leave but that’s pretty much it.

dunstonh

Starling2015 wrote: »

Did you go to the FOS with this? I today have received the exact same letter and tbh don’t know if it’s worth the hassle pursuing as I really can’t remember too many details especially when it comes to the sick pay etc as it was such a long time ago. I know I was maternity leave but that’s pretty much it.

What were your complaint reasons?
what evidence of info did you have to support those reasons?
why did the reject your complaint reasons?
are their rejection reasons fair or unfair and can you counter them?

hazeldp

We have also hit numerous issues now with Canada Square. We contacted them for both my wifes and my egg cards, and also two direct PPI policies she had for card protection. They have rejected everything saying that they wrote to us in 2013, to advise we may have been mis sold PPI, but because we did not respond they now will not pay up. We do not remember recieving these letters at all.
Anyone encountered this?

[Deleted User]

hazeldp wrote: »

They have rejected everything saying that they wrote to us in 2013, to advise we may have been mis sold PPI, but because we did not respond they now will not pay up. We do not remember recieving these letters at all.

As the end of PPI complaints is now nigh (August 2019), it is to be expected that "stragglers" such as yourself will encounter difficulties with being time barred from complaint because of CCL letters sent some years ago. It doesn't matter if you cannot remember the letter inviting you to complain because proof of posting is accepted as proof of delivery.

Unfortunately, it will only be possible to circumvent the time bar if you can show you had moved from the address the letter was sent in 2013. If you still lived at the address the bank had on file for you in 2013, then any complaint you might make now will no longer be considered.

If you moved prior to the letter being sent, you should write back and inform them.