Plevin Offered at same time PPI rejected

Holster911

Hi, I'm sorry if this question has already been posted in another thread.
I've recently submitted a PPI claim to Capital One who has rejected it outright but, at the same time, sent through a Plevin 'win' finding.
I've seen the comment on one of the blog sites apparently edited by Martin that this could be a tactic by Cap1 to stall any further appeals against the outcome and I'm not quite prepared to give up the fight just yet.
I'm aware that if I accept the Plevin payment, I can't claim any further against PPI.
I've sent through a SAR request to Cap1 today as they didn't provide any proof that I had ticked a box on an online application stating I wanted PPI (which I never needed due to employment benefits ever since I took the credit card out so wouldn't have wanted to take it out).
Does anyone know if you're able to reject an initial Plevin payment and then claim at a later date if the PPI claim is fully rejected at FOS level?
Many thanks in advance for all advice / suggestions.

[Deleted User]

It's not any kind of tactic and no need to reject the Plevin payment if you want to escalate the complaint.

dunstonh

I've seen the comment on one of the blog sites apparently edited by Martin that this could be a tactic by Cap1 to stall any further appeals against the outcome and I'm not quite prepared to give up the fight just yet.

That is complete rubbish. it is not a tactic. It is a regulatory requirement. I am not sure how anyone could refer to it as a tactic when the firm is required to automatically do a Plevin check on a rejected complaint.

I've sent through a SAR request to Cap1 today as they didn't provide any proof that I had ticked a box on an online application stating I wanted PPI

Did you provide any proof to them?

A DSAR may not yield what you want there as a screenshot is not likely to exist in their records. Only a record of what was selected.

(which I never needed due to employment benefits ever since I took the credit card out so wouldn't have wanted to take it out).

As this was an online application, the odds of a successful complaint are much reduced. You are effectively relying on a tick to not have it. However, whilst some firms did that in the past, not all did.

Also, an online application means it was non-advised. So, they are not required to make suitability checks. So, whether you actually needed it or not doesn't matter. As long as it would have paid out, that is all they need to worry about.

As you say you would never have wanted it, what did you do when you first started seeing it on your statements? Most people would contact the card provider and query it. Those doing so in the months or even year after would be considered highly credible even without evidence. Those complaining a decade or so later lack that credibility.

Does anyone know if you're able to reject an initial Plevin payment and then claim at a later date if the PPI claim is fully rejected at FOS level?

Yes

Nasqueron

If the PPI was opt-in (via ticking a box) not opt-out (via unticking a box or ticking a box to say you did NOT want it) then unfortunately the case will generally go against you as you chose the package. Only if the wording on the site is considered financial advice (such as "we strongly recommend you take out this product") does the FOS rule against this. If Cap One produce a screen shot or some similar evidence of the application process which shows it was opt-in then unless you have evidence it wasn't then you're out of luck. Do remember that credibility is also a big part of this - if you didn't want the PPI due to your work benefits then why did you not complain when the first charge appeared on your monthly statement - complaining any number of years later doesn't support your claims.



Regardless you can refer to the FOS and you might get lucky or the firm may continue to defend it

dunstonh

Only if the wording on the site is considered financial advice (such as "we strongly recommend you take out this product") does the FOS rule against this.

The FOS appear to have changed that position in recent times. What you describe is what they used to do. However, more recently they are not upholding that.

e.g. http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=141275

I don!!!8217;t think the use of the words !!!8220;strongly recommend!!!8221; in this context amount to a personal
recommendation that the policy was right for Miss M. So Allianz didn!!!8217;t have to check if the
PPI was suitable for Miss M. It did, however, have to give her clear information about the PPI
so Miss M could make up her own mind.

I have searched FOS decisions for a Cap One decision similar to the op and found the following:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=130662
- this one is a 2005 online sale and shows Cap One gave the choice to select yes.

I also found a 2003 sale that also confirmed that the applicant had to choose to have it.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=131324

None of the Cap One complaint outcomes I found made any mention of there being a strongly recommended statement

For searches of Cap One where the word online is mentioned, 212 are rejected and 130 are upheld (since 2012) - note the uphold number includes rejected complaints that got a Plevin payment. Strangely, the FOS class those as upheld because it results in a payment. So, the real uphold number will be lower. indeed, running through the first 10 classed as upheld found only 1 was actually upheld as missales, one wasnt about missale but a claim on the policy and the other 8 were rejected but plevin payouts.

I found another that confirmed the 2002 online application required you to select to have it. However, they upheld it as the disclosures on pre-existing medical conditions were not sufficient (and the person had a pre-existing condition). There are several like this.

They have also been upholding where the person is a shareholding company director.

Nasqueron

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS appear to have changed that position in recent times. What you describe is what they used to do. However, more recently they are not upholding that.

e.g. http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=141275

I don!!!8217;t think the use of the words !!!8220;strongly recommend!!!8221; in this context amount to a personal
recommendation that the policy was right for Miss M. So Allianz didn!!!8217;t have to check if the
PPI was suitable for Miss M. It did, however, have to give her clear information about the PPI
so Miss M could make up her own mind.

I have searched FOS decisions for a Cap One decision similar to the op and found the following:

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=130662
- this one is a 2005 online sale and shows Cap One gave the choice to select yes.

I also found a 2003 sale that also confirmed that the applicant had to choose to have it.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=131324

None of the Cap One complaint outcomes I found made any mention of there being a strongly recommended statement

For searches of Cap One where the word online is mentioned, 212 are rejected and 130 are upheld (since 2012) - note the uphold number includes rejected complaints that got a Plevin payment. Strangely, the FOS class those as upheld because it results in a payment. So, the real uphold number will be lower. indeed, running through the first 10 classed as upheld found only 1 was actually upheld as missales, one wasnt about missale but a claim on the policy and the other 8 were rejected but plevin payouts.

I found another that confirmed the 2002 online application required you to select to have it. However, they upheld it as the disclosures on pre-existing medical conditions were not sufficient (and the person had a pre-existing condition). There are several like this.

They have also been upholding where the person is a shareholding company director.

I supposed they're allowed to change their mind, it is logical that an opt-in, even with a bank recommendation, is still a choice that the consumer made when they bought the package rather than it being considered financial advice

Tinkabell76

Capitial One PPI rejected due to already making a claim and received non-disclosure of commission (Plevin) cheque.

Hi, I'm new to posting on the Forum and the questions may of been answered in previous posts.

1) I've had recently submitted a PPI claim and was informed by Capital One, that as I had already put in a claim for PPI in 2014, I couldn't claim again.

2) Also that as I had completed an online application for a credit card in 2003, that I had an overview of the PPI which outlined the main elements of the PPI cover and asked if I wanted to have the PPI and given option to opt for yes or no. Yes button was pressed the PPI was added to my account and that Capital One had not mis-sold PPI to me, that they had sold the PPI on a non-advised basis going by the response they have given me.

3) Called Capital One for a copy of the original online application have done in 2003, just to check this was the case, which they didn't have and I asked if I could have it in writing that they didn't have the original application which they declined as it's not something they would do.

I have spoken to other companies regarding PPI if they for example couldn't do PPI, etc and there wasn't a problem sending out a letter to me.

I just wanted know if other people have had this kind of response from Capital One and also to confirm if this is the case with Capital One that once I've done a claim for PPI I can't claim for it again.

Would it be an idea to do a DSAR for the original application? or worth speaking to the FOS? please advise if possible and many thanks in an advance.

[Deleted User]

Their reasons for rejecting your complaint seem very solid - especially as you say you already made a complaint some years ago.

If you do actually mean you made a claim, then the value of your claim would have been deducted from the redress in any case.

[Deleted User]

Tinkabell76 wrote: »

I just wanted know if other people have had this kind of response from Capital One and also to confirm if this is the case with Capital One that once I've done a claim for PPI I can't claim for it again.

You can normally complain only once.

Any attempt to repeat your PPI complaint from 2014 was always going to fail, unless you were able to produce new and compelling evidence of mis-sale not in your original complaint. You didn't have such evidence.

You've also left it too late to refer to the Ombudsman.

You are wasting your time asking for a copy of the application etc now as your complaint was closed forever five years ago.

Well done on your Plevin success, however.

societys_child

I just wanted know if other people have had this kind of response from Capital One and also to confirm if this is the case with Capital One that once I've done a claim for PPI I can't claim for it again

Not just Cap 1, you can't keep making the same complaint over and over . . . and over. . .

[Deleted User]

societys_child wrote: »

you can't keep making the same complaint over and over . . . and over. . .

Or at all....in less than a month...