Santander - One ppi claim accepted, four rejected... Next steps?

Dekyboy83

Hello,

I put in a complaint myself thru the santander website, quite quickly i had the most recent account accepted as mis-sold and was awarded £22.07.

The other four accounts were taken out previous to a particular date and required more investigation.

Today i have received a letter detailing how much i had paid in premiums across the 4 cards which totalled around £340.

How can they differentiate between one being mis sold and not the others...? Anyone had a similar experience and should i take it further? Apologies for a thread im sure exists somewhere in here already, i have scrolled through a lot of pages reading other experiences.

I have a copy of the letter but the forum doesnt allow me to post a link being a new user. It states " Based on the info available to me, at the time the policy was sold you were in permanent paid employment for a minimim of 16 hrs per week. In this respect i am satisfied that you would have been eligible to make a claim on the ppi policy, subject to a valid claim being received. However, if this was not the case when you elected to take out the policy, please let us know and we will gladly investigate the matter further. This was a non advised sale and we would not have sought information about any alternative cover that you may have had at the point of sale. Using the details available to me, i have been unable to conclude that the policy was inappropriate in this respect.

It goes on to spout more blah blah blah.

dunstonh

How can they differentiate between one being mis sold and not the others...?

There is nothing wrong with having PPI. The whole issue was how it was sold. Different periods had different sales methods. Different staff etc. Also, PPI is not all the same. Some types are better than others.

It goes on to spout more blah blah blah.

If you think of it like that then your complaint was likely blah blah blah too. Especially as the reasons they have given are typically used to respond to specific complaint reasons.

They have given some key information. It was a non-advised sale. You were eligible to have it. So, from a product point of view, there appears to be no failing. Reading and understanding their response is important.

campbell19925

You can refer your complaint to the financial ombudsman and they will make a final ruling. If you went through a CMC they should do this automatically for you. I assume you didnt because you are asking these questions.

The second poster is right, having PPI means nothing. You have to prove you have been mis-sold and have an argument.

Use this link http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ppi/how-do-i-complain.html

[Deleted User]

There is no rule that one PPI complaint success automatically means your other complaints will be too.

The fact is that the Bank has decided one of your PPI policies was mis-sold and the others weren't.

If you want to challenge the reasons for this, you need to carefully read the "blah blah blah" in your rejection letter.

The Bank say you were working more than sixteen hours a week in a permanent role, so were you? If so, the Bank are correct in saying the insurance was suitable for your circumstance. If not, provide your evidence.

You appear to have accused them of not investigating whether you had alternative cover, but did you have any such cover and can you evidence this?

You need to address the remaining points in their letter in a similar fashion, not simply dismissing them as "blah, blah, blah"

If you still remain dissatisfied, you have the option of referring your case to the Ombudsman-but don't tell them that you are unhappy simply because just one of your complaints was successful.

Dekyboy83

Dunstonh, the blah blah blah was more the fact i didn't want to type another few paragraphs on what is already a lengthy first post.

Having worked in retail latterly i can guarantee that the sales assistants were in a culture that they were pressured to hit targets and would happily just say "sign here and here" with no explanation.

societys_child

Did you sign the document without reading it?

Dekyboy83

It was 14, 15 years ago, i dont remember a document as such, more just a form to sign.

campbell19925

societys_child wrote: »

Did you sign the document without reading it?

Dekyboy83 wrote: »

It was 14, 15 years ago, i dont remember a document as such, more just a form to sign.

If you signed without reading it then just say that the adviser said by signing the box this was your only way of getting the cc/mortgage/loan and boom you'll get paid out if they cant disprove.

Obviously this is only with face to face and wouldn't work with online applications

[Deleted User]

Dekyboy83 wrote: »

i dont remember a document as such, more just a form to sign.

That's the same thing.
The point is if you signed your agreement without reading what you were signing, that does not automatically make it mis-sold.

No one held a gun to your head making you sign and you could have simply cancelled during the "cooling off" period.

[Deleted User]

campbell19925 wrote: »

If you signed without reading it then just say that the adviser said by signing the box this was your only way of getting the cc/mortgage/loan and boom you'll get paid out if they cant disprove.

That's just nonsense.

The burden of proof is with the complainant, not the Bank.

In addition, the OP has already made his complaint and he can hardly now add this reason simply because "boom".

Your earlier post linking to the Financial Ombudsman Service was much more useful to the OP.

Nasqueron

campbell19925 wrote: »

If you signed without reading it then just say that the adviser said by signing the box this was your only way of getting the cc/mortgage/loan and boom you'll get paid out if they cant disprove.

Obviously this is only with face to face and wouldn't work with online applications

Burden of proof is on the claimant not the defendant. He has to prove that happened, not for Santander to disprove it. Try not to spread misinformation like this