Financial Ombudsman refuses claim incorrectly

[Deleted User]

Garawa wrote: »

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

If you ever wanted to advance this you needed to have far more than a distant memory of long ago 'phone calls that may (or may not) have ever taken place. You will have been informed of this by the Bank in their initial rejection letter. Instead of accepting that your "complaint" was already at an end at that stage, you then went on to refer it to the Ombudsman. Then, not only are you surprised that you got a similar response, your thread title accuses the Ombudsman of refusing you "incorrectly"!:eek:

You need to understand once and for all that you don't have a valid complaint. There is no longer any evidence that you ever had a PPI policy. The end.

Garawa

Crikey! Ok! I'm fine with it, just trying to clarify why this is different to others. As I said above, I tried years ago and only gave it a go on the ease at which Martin made it sound in the last set of TV shows.

I stated "incorrectly" not because they rejected it "incorrectly" but because they "incorrectly" said I had not explained why I felt I was mis-sold PPI - the rest is detailed above as to why I clearly I had. Just asking a question.

[Deleted User]

Garawa wrote: »

just trying to clarify why this is different to others.

Your case is different for the following reasons;
You have no documentary evidence that you ever had PPI.
The bank have no documentary evidence that you ever had PPI.

Successful PPI complaints rely on one or the other (or both) of the above before they can even be considered. You have neither.

In addition, you don't appear to have given any reason why this phantom PPI was mis-sold to you. Instead, you appear to have expected it to be refunded automatically.

Garawa wrote: »

I tried years ago and only gave it a go on the ease at which Martin made it sound in the last set of TV shows.

Martin Lewis is a Consumer Champion and deliberately makes it sound as "easy" as possible so as to encourage people with valid complaints not to give up or (almost as bad) employ a Claims Management Company to complain for them.

Garawa wrote: »

I stated "incorrectly" not because they rejected it "incorrectly" but because they "incorrectly" said I had not explained why I felt I was mis-sold PPI - the rest is detailed above as to why I clearly I had.

Again, there is nothing "incorrect" about the Ombudsman's response to your statement that you "felt" you had PPI.
If I said, to give a ludicrous example, that I "felt" you owed me £10 would that mean you have to pay me? Rightly, you would refuse to pay me and demand evidence .

Garawa wrote: »

Just asking a question

But you already asked the same question years ago, you then recently asked the bank the same question again, then you asked the same question of the Ombudsman, then you asked the forum.
All of this was a waste of your time, the bank's time and the Ombudsman's time.
Do you now see why the answers have become more and more curt and why you are not due any "apology"?

-taff

I'd still send the SAR to Egg, because they kept pretty good records, and there may be proof there.

Bermonia

You say you asked them 3 times to remove the PPI and they didn’t... well the time to make a complaint would’ve been then when you had all the e Odense and records you needed.