We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Egg / Barclay Card Claim from 2000
Options
Comments
-
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.
They can yes but your advice was that you could see if the wording was considered advice or if they have pre-ticked boxes - this is a waste of time as the bank and FOS already know what the wording was at the time and whether there were pre-ticked boxes and these would be an automatic payout if applicable, the bank wouldn't fight it if they know the FOS will tell them to pay out. Dunstonh has advised that even wording like "we strongly advise" has started to be rejected now at the FOSSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
If you're going to argue with me then make sure you don't put words in my mouth.
I said thisIf 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.
which mentions nowhere about checking for pre ticked boxes.Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
If you're going to argue with me then make sure you don't put words in my mouth.
I said this
which mentions nowhere about checking for pre ticked boxes.
Your post is quoted in full here with relevant parts highlightedYou 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.
As I have said 3 times now, the bank and the FOS will know with 100% certainty if a) there was a pre-ticked box or opt-out and b) if the wording of the site from the time it was taken out was considered to be advice.
OP complained, the bank know when the account was opened and have confirmed OP ticked the box (opt-in) so already know neither of the situations above were applicable hence rejection and Plevin payout.
Your advice was to use the wayback archive to look at the site wording which wouldn't achieve anything as the bank know what the wording was and that it was opt-in PPI
OP has the right to refer to the FOS of course but looking up old versions of the website won't result in the bank changing their decision and the FOS is likely to side with the bank if those were the only complaint reasons given it was bought online and thus miss-bought not miss-soldSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Yes, the bank will know whether the box was pe-ticked. The OP however, has no recollection of doing so. So , logically, if he can show he was 'persuaded' by the 'advice' on the site to opt in, he has a better case.
As I have tried to explain. Obviously, failing badly with you.Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
Yes, the bank will know whether the box was pe-ticked. The OP however, has no recollection of doing so. So , logically, if he can show he was 'persuaded' by the 'advice' on the site to opt in, he has a better case.
As I have tried to explain. Obviously, failing badly with you.
Except, again, the FOS and the bank already know the exact wording on the site and know it DOES NOT constitute advice therefore it is not a miss-sale reason.
Note recent FOS ruling where someone tried the "advice on web sale" line based on wording that said "We strongly recommend you take this cover" and FOS rejected it, saying they consider the use of recommend to be a choice
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=141275
And another case from 2018
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=179692Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I agree this may well be worth a punt by the OP, but he should do so with little expectation of success.You can still complain to the FOS. ....
....Don't mention the box was pre ticked, just say you have no recollection of whether the box was pre ticked or not but were persuaded to have it by the 'advice' on the site.0 -
Except, again, the FOS and the bank already know the exact wording on the site and know it DOES NOT constitute advice therefore it is not a miss-sale reason.
You are assuming that this is the case. You only know from the OPs post that the box was not considered ot be pre-ticked. There is no mention of them complaining about any 'advice', because they have not sent this complaint to the FOS, they have only so far complained to Egg/Barclaycard.Note recent FOS ruling where someone tried the "advice on web sale" line based on wording that said "We strongly recommend you take this cover" and FOS rejected it, saying they consider the use of recommend to be a choice
Key word - recent. You have seen two examples. There may be more in the future, there may not be. Without checking the website, I have no idea how the phrase was worded, whether they used 'we strongly advise you' to take this cover, or something similar, and neither do you.
The OP has a slim chance with the FOS but he certainly has absolutely none if he doesn't complain to them.Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
You are assuming that this is the case. You only know from the OPs post that the box was not considered ot be pre-ticked. There is no mention of them complaining about any 'advice', because they have not sent this complaint to the FOS, they have only so far complained to Egg/Barclaycard.
I'm not assuming anything lol.
It is a fact the FOS have a big list of wording from applications, when pre-ticked or opt-out boxes were in use and whether the wording was "advice". They don't just look at each case and do the research at the time for each one they will simply say customer took the card out in xxxx and look and see if the box was opt-in and wording was ok. The bank have a comprehensive list of application wording etc from their own history
The bank will look at when the application was and will know immediately if the box was opt-in or opt-out and that is why this case has been rejected as OP actively selected it (i.e. miss-bought) and they were not sold anything as the wording was complaint.Key word - recent. You have seen two examples. There may be more in the future, there may not be. Without checking the website, I have no idea how the phrase was worded, whether they used 'we strongly advise you' to take this cover, or something similar, and neither do you.
.
The cases are relevant because previously the FOS had ruled "we strongly recommend" IS considered advice and have made companies pay out on that basis. They have now changed their opinion and now started rejecting this as a complaint reason.
I don't know how it's worded, no, but crucially I don't need to as I am not making the judgement, the bank is. The bank know the wording. They know it is compliant and not considered advice hence why they have rejected the case!
The OP is free to refer to the FOS but if he/she only presents the case that the wording was advice (which it isn't) and that the order was opt-out / pre-ticked the FOS will side with the bank as both those complaint reasons are easily dismissed as the bank have evidence and the customer doesn't.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Exactly. You don't know.I don't know how it's worded, no, but crucially I don't need to as I am not making the judgement, the bank is.
That's why it is wise not to pontificate too much on complaints which have yet to be adjudicated by the Ombudsman.
The Ombudsman may well uphold or reject the complaint. Forum regulars should know better than to tell other posters that their complaint is definitely over before it actually is.
0 -
The strongly recommend style documentation, in the early days of PPI complaints, did seem to result in more upheld complaints than it does today. This has happened in the past in many areas where views change or adapt over time and complaint outcomes change.
The other problem is that it can be subjective. One person may have a higher IQ and can clearly tell that it is not a personal recommendation and get their complaint rejected as it was only being used as an excuse to attempt a refund rather than a genuine complaint reason. Whereas another person with lower intelligence may not have understood it was not a personal recommendation and the FOS will uphold it. Intelligence does play a role in the decision making.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards