Financial Ombudsman refuses claim incorrectly

Garawa

Hi all

I had PPI with Egg and rang Barclaycard about the matter quite a few years ago. As it was over 6 years, they had no record of the issue and dismissed the complaint as I expected. I had no credit card paperwork so I left it.

Recently I came across my bank statements which show the Egg payments and again Barclaycard said there was nothing that could be done. We sent them to the FOS and told them the following reasons why I feel I had PPI. I recall ringing Egg a number of times over a few months asking why this payment was added to the account, how to remove it and not being able to. They said it was added to accounts in case of being unable pay the bill. Another phone call said, in order to cancel it, I had to do this on their website. Another phone call after saying I couldn't find how said it could only be done there. I gave up and left it on there.

The FOS have said that they cannot pursue the claim as there is no evidence I had PPI and I haven't stated why I think I had it! On the TV show, some people have received thousands after a phone call with no paperwork for anything. I have just 1 valid PPI claim and its like pulling teeth.

meer53

If FOS have looked at the statements and not seen any PPI payments then you don't have a case. What do your statements show ? PPI will show separately to any transactions.

Garawa

My statements just showed a single payment to Egg. My egg statements (which are the ones I no longer have) showed a fee as a percentage (I think) of the balance added to the bill each month and it was that which I queried. What exactly it said I'm not sure as it was about 12 years ago however I remember the phone calls. I didn't ask for this charge and they refused to cancel it over the phone. The operator said it was in case I couldn't pay the bill so it sounds like PPI.

-taff

|Send a SAR to Egg, to see what info they have left, and then ask for your case to forwarded to an Ombudsman.
Be aware though, tha in most cases, PPI was sold online for Egg, and the dates between when the box was preticked are very small.

If you did buy it online, then what results is a missbuying, not misselling case.
However, I had success with an Egg PPI complaint despite buying online, but I can't tell you if the box was preticked or not, because I don't know.
If you have records back from Egg showing the PPI, send it back to the Ombudsman.
And remember, no one is owed their PPI back, no one claims their PPI back, there must be a problem with the lisselling of it to have a successful compaint, so again, you are reliant on having enough savings, good sick pay or cover elsewhere.

Garawa

Ok thank you. It was the first card I had when I started part-time work for the first time (about 2002) so I definitely didn't have any backup for it. I don't think I applied for it online either as I had the account for a few years (paying the additional fee) and only set up the online account when we got the internet in 2007. The phone calls came before then as I didn't have the online account at the time.

I believe my Egg card transferred to Goldfish, then Morgan Stanley (however this may have been another separate card) and now currently with Barclaycard who have no records. I doubt any lie elsewhere especially as I have been with Barclaycard alone for about 9 years (maybe more).

The only evidence of having an Egg account lie on my bank statements but the FOS haven't returned those yet.

dunstonh

. We sent them to the FOS and told them the following reasons why I feel I had PPI.

They are not evidence that you had PPI though.

The FOS have said that they cannot pursue the claim as there is no evidence I had PPI and I haven't stated why I think I had it!

That is a logical response based on what you have said.

On the TV show, some people have received thousands after a phone call with no paperwork for anything.

Correct. It requires one side to hold sufficient paperwork. The banks, in particular, hold longer-term records for existing customers (less for previous customers), Card providers of existing customers hold a fair bit of data. However, when your account is closed, the data starts to be destroyed over a period. The longer that period, the more that gets destroyed until there is nothing.

I believe my Egg card transferred to Goldfish, then Morgan Stanley (however this may have been another separate card) and now currently with Barclaycard who have no records. I doubt any lie elsewhere especially as I have been with Barclaycard alone for about 9 years (maybe more).

When one provider buys the book of another provider, they usually only take the data of the "currently" open accounts and not the closed accounts. So, if you closed the account before any of the transfers of ownership, the data is unlikely to have been transferred to the new owner.

Garawa

That's what I thought thank you. And why I really didn't pursue the matter after the initial calls to Barclaycard. It was only Martin's insistence and how easy it all sounded that made me look again.

I still would rather the FOS apologise that they cannot help without the original card statements as that was logical instead of stating I have not stated why I felt I had PPI included as I felt I had made that bit very clear.

-taff

Garawa wrote: »

The only evidence of having an Egg account lie on my bank statements but the FOS haven't returned those yet.

Then you have no evidence showing you paid PPI becaue your bank statements only show you having paid one amount, not a breakdown of PPI and interest and capital.

[Deleted User]

Garawa wrote: »

On the TV show, some people have received thousands after a phone call with no paperwork for anything. I have just 1 valid PPI claim and its like pulling teeth.

Understand that people receiving "thousands" will have actually paid thousands. Your problem is that you have no documentary proof that you paid any PPI and neither has the Bank.

Do note also that, even if you had PPI, it is not automatically refunded. So even if you had proof, you'd still have to show that the insurance was mis-sold to you in order to secure your errant "thousands".

Garawa wrote: »

I still would rather the FOS apologise that they cannot help without the original card statements as that was logical instead of stating I have not stated why I felt I had PPI included as I felt I had made that bit very clear.

It sounds as if FOS were responding in kind to your statement that you "felt" you had PPI. Certainly, they are not obliged to "apologise" because you haven't presented a valid complaint!:eek:


Sorry

dunstonh

That's what I thought thank you. And why I really didn't pursue the matter after the initial calls to Barclaycard. It was only Martin's insistence and how easy it all sounded that made me look again.

Martin has previously said that he has limited time windows. Often only allowing for 30 seconds on a subject. In that time he has to encourage people to do something. he cannot cover the caveats or the sub-issues etc.

I still would rather the FOS apologise that they cannot help without the original card statements as that was logical instead of stating I have not stated why I felt I had PPI included as I felt I had made that bit very clear.

The FOS is an independent adjudicator. You have made an allegation. It is asking you to provide evidence of that allegation. There is nothing to apologise for. The FOS is not a consumer champion. They have not made a mistake.

Garawa

There is a degree semantics here. I was not after an apology as such, more that a "sorry we cannot help without more evidence" rather than "you have not explained how you felt you had PPI" when I had quite clearly would have been a more appropriate response.

I'm not sure what more can be done if having proof of PPI and also needing to prove the mis-selling as, in most instances, it would be their word against the others. I know Egg mis-sold these at the time I had a card and I know I asked 3 times for them to remove it having not agreed to it in the first place and they refused. I didn't record the call so cannot gain any proof.

Thanks all.