📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

Debenhams PPI rejected but others upheld

I had a PPI complaint for a Debenhams store card rejected by Santander last summer due to it being a non advised sale in 1999. The underwriter Axa also wrote to me confirming they agreed with the decision. Genworth redirected me back to Santander so I assumed this was all done and dusted.
I missed referring it to the ombudsmen to to a family bereavement in December.
Santander wrote to me regarding store cards for new look and Dorothy Perkins. I filled in the forms and they have upheld ccomplaibts for these!
The store cards were all taken out within the same year so my circumstances were exactly the same for all 3. Full time job, good sick pay and redundancy etc.
How can they reject one and not the other two? My question is can I challenge this or is it too late? This is especially annoying as the balance on the Debenhams one was much higher

Thank you

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Doglover12 wrote: »
    How can they reject one and not the other two?
    The result of one PPI complaint has no bearing on that of another.
    Your complaint was about the circumstances of the sale, not your personal circumstances at the time. The fact that all these policies were taken out in the same year is irrelevant.

    If you've missed the six month deadline for Ombudsman referral then you have nowhere left to take this, but the complaint would never be upheld simply on the basis that your other complaints were successful.
  • Doglover12
    Doglover12 Posts: 16 Forumite
    Thank you for your quick response :)
  • Hi
    They did exactly the same to me, alleged I took out an insurance policy 3 months later over the phone; which I wouldn’t have ; didn’t need it; didn’t want it. Took it to the ombudsman, however he felt that even if I’d been given better information I would have taken it out.
    My personal opinion is it was falsely added to my account and there is no way I took it out, I have a good career with minimal to no risk of redundancy, full sick pay etc. Worked for 30yrs continuously.
    I also had money back on other accounts but the Debenhams one would’ve been more. I will never shop with them again.
    I don’t know if I can now claim using the Plevin ruling? As it would be a different claim ?
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Obilou7 wrote: »
    My personal opinion is it was falsely added to my account
    Prove this was the case and you'll get a full refund. I doubt you can do this, it's a claim company myth that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of the customer.

    Any Plevin refund will depend on whether your PPI was still active in recent years. If not, you won't be in scope for Plevin.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,613 Forumite
    Tenth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Obilou7 wrote: »
    Hi
    They did exactly the same to me, alleged I took out an insurance policy 3 months later over the phone; which I wouldn’t have ; didn’t need it; didn’t want it. Took it to the ombudsman, however he felt that even if I’d been given better information I would have taken it out.
    My personal opinion is it was falsely added to my account and there is no way I took it out, I have a good career with minimal to no risk of redundancy, full sick pay etc. Worked for 30yrs continuously.
    I also had money back on other accounts but the Debenhams one would’ve been more. I will never shop with them again.
    I don’t know if I can now claim using the Plevin ruling? As it would be a different claim ?

    Given this was falsely added to your account, why did you not complain at the time of the sale given it would be on every statement you received? It harms your credibility if you say this but didn't complain until many years after the event as it looks to an external (like the FOS) like a try it on - they can only judge based on the evidence they have.

    Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness: 

    People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.

  • Debenhams are stating no record of my account and I remember specifically being pressurised to buy PPI!
    I don!!!8217;t know if any way to get my account details from. It sucks as like you I had a lot on it for years
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.7K Life & Family
  • 256.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.