Egg / Barclay Card Claim from 2000

hotbaws

Hi All,

I've got an active Barclay card that was initially my old Egg Credit card and after digging out some old paperwork from my parents I noticed it had PPI on the old statement so I logged a PPI claim online with Barclay and after 4 weeks I received a letter back from them saying after reviewing their internal system evidence and the information provided by me that as I submitted my Egg Card application online dated February 2000 so they didn't give me any advise whether I required it or not....now I have absolutely no recollection of ticking any box and I never took it out with any other bank loans or credit cards so I believe it may have been a pre ticked option on the application that I didn't know to opt out of.

They have agreed to pay me compensation for PPI Commission as it was more than 50% but they don't have the commission rates so are offering an amount based on the FCA rules along with interest. They broke down the refund as below and included a cheque for the total.

Refund of PPI commission - £1060.72
Interest on refunded commission - £171.34
Statutory Compensation - £1220.58
Refund of fees incurred due to high commission on PPI - £0
Income Tax deduction - £244.11

Total owed - £2208.53

After searching on here I've since read that Egg did infact have the PPI option pre-ticked on online applications (unless I'm wrong) so I was reject the amount offered and escalate my claim which leads to to ask the questions next for some advise...

What's my next course of action....back to Barclay or directly to the financial ombudsman?
What can I do to try and prove that the PPI option was in fact Pre-ticked when I applied?

Any other advise would be gratefully received.

Thanks

[Deleted User]

hotbaws wrote: »

I've since read that Egg did infact have the PPI option pre-ticked on online applications (unless I'm wrong)

The Bank have already said you actively ticked the box selecting PPI in February 2000. Pre- populated tick boxes were not a feature of Egg application forms at that time.

Since you cannot even remember the application almost two decades on, it goes without saying that you have little in the way of evidence to contest the Bank's rejection of your PPI complaint.

Sorry.

hotbaws

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The Bank have already said you actively ticked the box selecting PPI in February 2000. Pre- populated tick boxes were not a feature of Egg application forms at that time.

Since you cannot even remember the application almost two decades on, it goes without saying that you have little in the way of evidence to contest the Bank's rejection of your PPI complaint.

Sorry.

I actively avoided Payment protection on an loans before and after then, I've worked for the same company since 1992 so I would not have taken out knowingly taken out PPI as it would just have been a waste of money.

I doubt many people would be able to remember applications from 18 years previously, I wondered if this was something worth following up on but your reply certainly puts me off.

[Deleted User]

hotbaws wrote: »

I've worked for the same company since 1992 so I would not have taken out knowingly taken out PPI as it would just have been a waste of money.

Why would it be a "waste of money"?

Back then you would only have been working there for eight years and there is no way you could have known then that your job would continue for another two decades.

No one (other than a few select professions) is immune to redundancy.

Again, none of this is valid "evidence" with which to contest your rejection.

PixelPound

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Why would it be a "waste of money"?

Back then you would only have been working there for eight years and there is no way you could have known then that your job would continue for another two decades.

No one (other than a few select professions) is immune to redundancy.

Again, none of this is valid "evidence" with which to contest your rejection.

I too actively avoided PPI as a waste of money, since the T&C meant I would not get paid if I lost my job. The reason, I was on a rolling contact, so employment could be terminated by simply not renewing the contract, and the t&c often excluded this type of employment.

[Deleted User]

nic_c wrote: »

I too actively avoided PPI as a waste of money, since the T&C meant I would not get paid if I lost my job.

Anyone sold PPI in those circumstances would undoubtedly be mis-sold it. The Op of this thread, however, selected it online and was not sold anything. He bought it.

Nasqueron

You should accept the Plevin payout, you're not going to get anything from the FOS if you ticked a box to say you wanted PPI.

Online PPI is bought rather than sold so cannot logically be miss-sold as no-one sold you anything. For a time some forms that used wording considered to be advice (such as "we strongly recommend you take out this product") were considered to be advised sales but this is no longer necessarily applicable. The bank (and the FOS) will know the period when they had opt-out or pre-ticked boxes so there is no reason for them to lie about this. The only way you could prove this would be a screenshot of the application which contradicts this but I doubt you have this. You have the right to refer to the FOS in the next 6 months but there is not that much chance of it being overturned given the details you have supplied - particularly as this new allegation of pre-ticked boxes has been introduced later and you have no evidence to support this

Nasqueron

nic_c wrote: »

I too actively avoided PPI as a waste of money, since the T&C meant I would not get paid if I lost my job. The reason, I was on a rolling contact, so employment could be terminated by simply not renewing the contract, and the t&c often excluded this type of employment.

If you had bought PPI (such as an active tick in a box online to say you wanted it), even if the PPI would not cover you, that would still not be miss-sold as no-one sold you it, you chose it. In that situation it's like buying a manual car off ebay when you only have an automatic license then complaining you can't drive it.

-taff

You can still complain to the FOS. If you believe that were encouraged to take the permium by the wording on the site, and you had enough money to pay any monies owing out of savings etc, or had a good sick pay scheme, then make a complaint.
You cn use the internet wayback machine website to see what the site would have looked like at the time.
I would complain to the FOS and then apply for the Plevin if that is unsuccessful.

Don't mention the box was pre ticked, just say you have no recollection of whether the box was pre ticked or notb ut were persuaded to have it by the 'advice' on the site.

Nasqueron

-taff wrote: »

You can still complain to the FOS. If you believe that were encouraged to take the permium by the wording on the site, and you had enough money to pay any monies owing out of savings etc, or had a good sick pay scheme, then make a complaint.
You cn use the internet wayback machine website to see what the site would have looked like at the time.
I would complain to the FOS and then apply for the Plevin if that is unsuccessful.

Don't mention the box was pre ticked, just say you have no recollection of whether the box was pre ticked or notb ut were persuaded to have it by the 'advice' on the site.

The FOS / bank have records of what the text was and whether the form was opt out or in so using wayback machine won't achieve anything. OP has already complained and the bank would have paid out if it was the period of opt-out - trying to say it was pre-ticked or wording was considered advice is pointless as we already know it wasn't.



The bank have already paid out for Plevin as they rejected the complaint,

-taff

Doesn't matter if they have paid out, he can still use the FOS. I was successful with complaint to Egg and I don't believe the box was pre-ticked at the time I had the card [could be wrong though].


The wayback machine is inteneded to see what the wording was regarding their 'advice' on purchasing the PPI.

They can only say yes or no.