RBS Credit Card PPI increased debt over 16 years!

gossfam1

dunstonh wrote: »

Why do you think the bank needs to do anything?
it is the responsibility of the individual to control their spending. Unless there is a mental illness, they are providing a service that the customer has asked for and is using.
Each statement gives the warning about making a minimum payment.

As far as she was concerned, she was not spending on the card. Her spending had ceased in 2003 and she was making the required repayments.
Yes, the warning on the statements says making the "minimum repayments will dramatically increase the time to pay off the debt"

It does not mention we will add charges to the debt which means it will be impossible to pay off the debt on minimum repayments.

dunstonh wrote: »

That is not the fault of the bank. She breached their T&C by not keeping the address current.

Agreed - I never said she wasn't at fault - Does this in itself invalidate any claim? Does it mean her own stupidity consented to PPI?

dunstonh wrote: »

That is contradictory. She had a debt she was burying her head in the sand about but now you are saying there are savings that could be used to cover the debt. So, why would someone bury their head in the sand over a debt they can easily cover?

Of course it's stupid - I don't dispute that. But I as far as she was concerned she wasn't spending and was paying the debt off, so those savings were going towards our house deposit.

dunstonh wrote: »

That is not a common missale reason. Very many stable jobs have been lost over the years.

But if you didn't know that you could have used this to claim in that event, because you weren't aware you had the product, then surely this is mis-selling.

BoGoF

gossfam1 wrote: »

So you're saying that as it was listed on a statement and it wasn't questioned at the time by her, then this is taken as consent?
Even on the main information pages of MSE, it talks of even having PPI is likely a case of mis-selling.

I think if you re-read the statement you refer to this relates to Plevin and not the actual PPI itself - they are two distinct complaints.

Nasqueron

Whenever I see something I don't recognise on my statement I query it, that's how I avoid scams like cards being stolen or cloned. Not reading statements for 3 years and moving house and not telling the bank doesn't mean she was miss-sold, if anything it shows she likely did know about it and wanted it.



You also seem to be unaware that the situation years after the event doesn't affect the point of sale. She could have lost her job a year later, the fact she didn't is irrelevant. She could also have cancelled the policy if she didn't want it.


The MSE site says a lot of stuff that isn't correct

Nasqueron

gossfam1 wrote: »

As far as she was concerned, she was not spending on the card. Her spending had ceased in 2003 and she was making the required repayments.

So why didn't she read the statements?

gossfam1 wrote: »

Yes, the warning on the statements says making the "minimum repayments will dramatically increase the time to pay off the debt"

It does not mention we will add charges to the debt which means it will be impossible to pay off the debt on minimum repayments.

That information will have been on the PPI contract she agreed to.

gossfam1 wrote: »

Agreed - I never said she wasn't at fault - Does this in itself invalidate any claim? Does it mean her own stupidity consented to PPI?

Not at all, but it does weaken the case considerably - not complaining until 16 years after the event suggests she's just jumping on the PPI bandwagon, cancelling or trying to cancel the policy after a few weeks shows credibility, leaving it this long doesn't.

gossfam1 wrote: »

But if you didn't know that you could have used this to claim in that event, because you weren't aware you had the product, then surely this is mis-selling.

Not at all, she signed up for it, it was listed on every statement, she knew she had it, she forgot, she didn't check her statements - nothing about that says it was miss-sold, but rather indicates a need for better management of finances

[Deleted User]

gossfam1 wrote: »

Maybe so, I want to get a copy of the current terms and conditions of credit card in question, as surely banks have to update them in line with new requirements and regulation.

Only where required. The minimum payment change was not required. This was explained in post 2.

dunstonh

Agreed - I never said she wasn't at fault - Does this in itself invalidate any claim? Does it mean her own stupidity consented to PPI?

I have seen a FOS decision go in favour of the bank due to the person not keeping the bank informed of their change of address and the bank relying on that to send out risk warnings etc that would have been received if the address had been current.

it doesnt prevent a complaint on missale but it does water down any complaint about ongoing service they provided.

Even on the main information pages of MSE, it talks of even having PPI is likely a case of mis-selling.

Like many MSE articles, it is too simple to say that. Some types of PPi have a 90%+ uphold rate. Some have under 5% uphold rate. You can still be a couple of types of PPI today.

MSE also refers to Plevin as misselling. That isnt really a missale but a change in the consumer credit act 2006 which led to a court case that a bank lost. It can result in a payout (and almost certainly would in this case if the complaint was rejected). However, it only tends to apply to loans, credit cards and bank sold MPPI. So, again, not all PPI gets this.

gossfam1

Nasqueron wrote: »

That information will have been on the PPI contract she agreed to.

She didn't agree..it was signed up for her, she never signed a document for PPI and didn't know she had it

Nasqueron wrote: »

Not at all, but it does weaken the case considerably - not complaining until 16 years after the event suggests she's just jumping on the PPI bandwagon, cancelling or trying to cancel the policy after a few weeks shows credibility, leaving it this long doesn't.

You can't cancel something you don't know you had or are paying for..how can you question credibility. You would have to be completely stupid to carry on paying for something that's actualy optional knowing it's the only thing that's keeping you in the debt you're in.

Nasqueron wrote: »

Not at all, she signed up for it, it was listed on every statement, she knew she had it, she forgot, she didn't check her statements - nothing about that says it was miss-sold, but rather indicates a need for better management of finances

I think key here is that she didn't sign up for this. She didn't ask for it or consent it to, it was simply added to the statement as a charge. I would have thought the definition of 'mis-sold' is that the client is aware they are buying a product. If the buyer didn't know this was an optional purchase and not a credit charge, such as statement interest, then this would be the definition of "mis-sold" - Better financial management - absolutely! But the bank has to ensure it has sold a product to the client and has their agreement to. I don't believe this was the case.

gossfam1

Deleted_User wrote: »

Only where required. The minimum payment change was not required. This was explained in post 2.

Please confirm that ANY card taken out before 2010 does not need to have minimum payment requirements to meet repayment and as such any terms and conditions updates are irrelevant - I can't see how you could know this without knowing the specifics of the card and contract terms?

[Deleted User]

I can confirm that card taken out before the new regs came in did NOT need the minimum payments to be changed.

I can know this because I implemented the rules across several card portfolios.

It was up to each lender as to whether they chose to change the back book.

BoGoF

You keep saying she didn't sign up for it......can you prove this. If you can go ahead with the complaint.....it's not us here that you need to convince.