Is this a poor response from the Ombudsman?

EEGER

Dear All, first ever post.
I complained against my bank for PPI some years ago for a mis-selling in 1999, I followed the MSE templates, the bank denied wrongdoing, I took my complaint to the ombudsman service who found in favour of my bank, continued to ombudsman, I have just received confirmation that ombudsman also found in favour of my bank.
My complaint was that the tick box agreement was a “strong recommendation”.
i.e. Do you want PPI ? [We strongly recommend you tick yes].
I purely ticked yes because of the “strong recommendation”. I think this was an advised sale, with no proper investigation from my bank as to the appropriateness of the sale. I work in NHS with good sickness benefits.

The ombudsman, in their final judgement, have not recognised this “strong recommendation”, at all. There was no mention of “strong recommendation” in their judgement, and the (verbatim) response was:
“EEGER has said that he thinks BANK recommended the PPI to him, based on the wording of the application form. But based on what I’ve seen, I don’t think any advice was given. This means BANK didn’t have to check if it was right for EEGER. But it did have to make sure EEGER got the right information he needed to make sure it was right for him.”
I don’t understand how the ombudsman can not see the strong recommendation as advice.
The ombudsman goes on to suggest that “even if I did consider a recommendation was made” the policy was suitable. And “EEGER chose to take out the PPI – so it looks like he wanted this type of cover”
Prior to the ombudsman decision, I wrote to them and said the only reason I took out the PPI was because of the “strong recommendation”, there was no "want" just naive acceptance of the strong recommendation.
The ombudsman does think, however as a result of the Plevin judgement, the BANK should repay some of the commission. The ombudsman has asked me to confirm that I agree with their judgement and then the bank will repay the commissions.
The bank however has already paid this money into my account, without my acceptance of the judgement, as a “full and final settlement of your complaint against BANK”
My 2 questions are;
1 I don’t think the Ombudsman have properly addressed my complaint from1999. I completely fail to see how a strong recommendation is not advice. What’s my next step?
I have until 18th June to decide.
2 Why on earth have the bank paid the money into my account before my agreement?
I hope someone can give me some clarity around this.
Many thanks!

dunstonh

My complaint was that the tick box agreement was a !!!8220;strong recommendation!!!8221;.
i.e. Do you want PPI ? [We strongly recommend you tick yes].
I purely ticked yes because of the !!!8220;strong recommendation!!!8221;. I think this was an advised sale, with no proper investigation from my bank as to the appropriateness of the sale. I work in NHS with good sickness benefits.

What type of PPi is this?

For example, MPPI usually sees the FOS reject the complaint anyway. Whereas loan and credit card PPI then tend to uphold.

However, the fact it says "strong recommendation" clearly indicates that it is optional. So, it eliminates that failure reason.

Also, how did you buy it? online, mailshot or using a staff member?

I don!!!8217;t understand how the ombudsman can not see the strong recommendation as advice.

Advice has a regulatory meaning and goes through a process. What info did the member of staff take from you. What information did the member of staff give you and what advice was presented to you.

if it was a postal or online application with no staff member involved, then its hard to see how it could be considered advice.

The ombudsman goes on to suggest that !!!8220;even if I did consider a recommendation was made!!!8221; the policy was suitable. And !!!8220;EEGER chose to take out the PPI !!!8211; so it looks like he wanted this type of cover!!!8221;

This is important as this is where many failed complaints (on other reasons) the go onto succeed. In your case, it doesnt though as you are eligible an the policy would have paid out.

1 I don!!!8217;t think the Ombudsman have properly addressed my complaint from1999. I completely fail to see how a strong recommendation is not advice. What!!!8217;s my next step?

I disagree with your point of view (based on the little you have posted). The FOS seem to have acted with the current position they take on this.

If you disagree, your only action is legal action. However, as it is more than 15 year ago, the bank can apply to bar your case.

2 Why on earth have the bank paid the money into my account before my agreement?

Because it doesnt matter if you give your agreement or not. The complaint is rejected and you are entitled to a Plevin refund. There is nothing for you to agree or disagree.

EEGER

Thanks dunstonh for your insight, that’s really helpful.
It was a PPI for a credit card. There was only the paper tickbox, no contact with a salesperson. I understood “we strongly recommend” as “advice”, so clearly whilst the regulations suggest this was not advice, I certainly understood it to be advice, hence the “yes” tick.
You mention the 15yr cut-off for court action, it has taken at least 5 yrs to get to this point with the ombudsman since my initial complaint to the Bank, do you know if this has any bearing on the 15 yr time limit?
Any suggestions as to where to go for “taking to court” advice?
Ta.

[Deleted User]

EEGER wrote: »

I don't understand how the ombudsman can not see the strong recommendation as advice.
The ombudsman goes on to suggest that even if I did consider a recommendation was made the policy was suitable.

You need to understand that even if a bank member of staff had told you in person that the PPI was strongly recommended that wouldn't have been itself a mis-sale unless the insurance was not suitable for you.
By focussing on the tick box message being "advice", you are losing sight of the fact that the Ombudsman has agreed with the Bank that the policy would have paid out in the event you needed to claim.

EEGER wrote: »

Prior to the ombudsman decision, I wrote to them and said the only reason I took out the PPI was because of the strong recommendation, there was no "want" just naive acceptance of the strong recommendation.

But no one forced you to take the insurance, it was still your own decision.

EEGER wrote: »

I don't think the Ombudsman have properly addressed my complaint from1999. I completely fail to see how a strong recommendation is not advice. What's my next step?
I have until 18th June to decide.

You have already exhausted all the realistic options available to you, I'm afraid. The Bank, a FOS adjudicator and finally an Ombudsman all agree that you were not mis-sold. Bluntly put, your complaint has already reached the final arbiter and has taken a frankly ridiculous amount of time already.

Why has your complaint been with FOS for five years?

EEGER wrote: »

Why on earth have the bank paid the money into my account before my agreement?

The Plevin refund is not somehow negotiable. It's also not going to prejudice any further (court) action you might take. In the unlikely event you were to win in court, the amount you've already been refunded would simply be subtracted from the final redress amount.

EEGER wrote: »

Any suggestions as to where to go for "taking to court" advice?

See a legal professional.

dunstonh

no contact with a salesperson. I understood !!!8220;we strongly recommend!!!8221; as !!!8220;advice!!!8221;, so clearly whilst the regulations suggest this was not advice, I certainly understood it to be advice, hence the !!!8220;yes!!!8221; tick.

The problem is that you didnt seek advice and no adviser gave you advice. You are interpreting the wording "strongly recommend" as being personalised advice. The bank and FOS are saying it is not personalised advice.

The FOS have actually upheld complaints where a strongly advised wording has been used but only when in conjunction with other failings. And their position 10 years ago seems to be different today. Here is a FOS decision from earlier this year about an RBS credit card that said "strongly recommended".

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=179692

I have just found a load of decisions in the last few months where "strongly recommended" was used as a complaint reason and all rejected as it not being personal advice.

Ironically, a case study posted by the FOS near the start of PPI complaints about 10 years ago actually said they treated "strongly recommend" as "we were satisfied that it was reasonable for Mrs B to think that the financial business was providing her with advice about what she should do, even if that was not its intention."


Yet by 2013, you were seeing responses like: (copied and pasted)
Mr G would probably not have considered the statement, We strongly recommend
you take the cover; to be anything other than a general marketing approach; it is certainly
not directed to Mr G personally.

This can happen with issues over time. Early decisions and points of view change over time. Sometimes it can be the result of abuse by claims companies or individuals trying to find a hole and using it willly nilly and the banks pointing out inconsistencies in responses and the FOS review the stance and give guidance to the caseworkers.

Any suggestions as to where to go for !!!8220;taking to court!!!8221; advice?

A solicitor. However, the fact this was more than 15 years ago means a longstop can be applied. Plus, even when that is not able to be used, court cases are rare. The FOS is far more consumer friendly than the courts.

Your problem is that the FOS have confirmed that you were eligible and the policy would have paid out. And nobody sold it to you. you bought it. So, you have to prove a wrongdoing in court. If nobody sold it to you and you are eligible under the policy, that is going to be damned hard. However, all that is jumping the gun as the 15 year requirement to start legal action has passed.