PPI Claim Rejected - Worth Appealing

cookie666

Just had a rejection from Lloyds over a credit card I had PPI on a card I took out in 1994.

It was rejected as the during the application "it was more likley than not that the optional nature was explained to me"

However, I maintain that I was told I needed to have PPI to get the card.

Is it worth escalating to Ombudsman or should I give up on it?

dunstonh

We do not have the benefit of the audit trail. So, we cannot tell you whether its worth it or not. All we can do is comment on what you tell us.

It was rejected as the during the application "it was more likley than not that the optional nature was explained to me"

However, I maintain that I was told I needed to have PPI to get the card.

That wording is almost word for word what the FOS use in their responses when rejecting that particular complaint area.

Basically, your allegation is unprovable. I doubt you have anything to support your allegation. no evidence I mean. So, they look at their documentation and they probably have nothing to support your allegation either. So, without anything hinting towards what you say you were told, they can reject that point.

Every try-it-on or fraudulent complaint uses that as a complaint reason too. Including those that never paid any PPI. It is one of the weakest complaint reasons going as the odds of any evidence existing to support it is very low. It only tends to work as a reason if it was a paper application and the wording did not make it clear it was optional

I found a number of FOS outcomes that I could use but I think this one closely fits yours as its a sale in 1996 (so near to yours) and has a similar complaint reason and an almost word for word rejection as Lloyds have given.
I think Lloyds more than likely made Mr H aware that the PPI was optional and that he chose to take it out. I
vs yours:
"it was more likley than not that the optional nature was explained to me"

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=82464

As usual, when an unprovable allegation fails, they revert to looking at all other areas to see if there are failures there (which Lloyds should have done). Such as eligibility etc.

The similarity in wording is expected at this stage as firms look at FOS decisions over time and see what they reject things on and implement that into their own processes.

It is also worth noting how FOS decisions and write-ups change over time as well. When the PPi issue started, length of time it was paid over was not seen as being an issue. However, this FOS decision is a more recent one and they have used how long it was paid for and long ago it was against the individual.