Santander

Elaine60

Hi, I’ve got 4 claims in with Santander, 3 of which were previously denied in 2015. I claimed again in February and within 2 weeks they paid out on the old BHS storecard (previously denied) without any fuss or questioning. They are still working on the two 1st National claims but are now asking me about my employment situation from 1993 in relation to the Debenhams claim, specifically wanting to know the dates I was employed. I can’t clearly remember that far back but think i was at the firm for about a year (ish) and moved around a lot back then. Any idea what part this plays in my claim? TIA.

Nasqueron

If you were not working when taken out, the PPI would not have paid out so that would be a miss-selling reason, though you'd have to prove it via tax records etc

Elaine60

I was working consistently but I moved around a lot during those years, so I'm not sure if the fact I was working consistently or whether I was "flighty" will hinder my claim?

-taff

If you said you had good sick pay, they want to know who you were employed by, if you said you weren't working, they want to know when you weren't working.

Elaine60

I was never asked about sick pay etc when I made the application, merely confirmed I was employed. It was a form that the sales assistant ticked saying my application for a Debenhams card wouldn't be successful if I didn't take out the PPI. So I'm wondering why my length of employment matters now when it didn't then? I remember the company but no idea how long I worked there, maybe around a year?

[Deleted User]

It matters now because you're trying to establish a mis sale.

Elaine60

So which is better? The fact I was consistently employed, or the fact I moved around a lot?

Nasqueron

Elaine60 wrote: »

I was never asked about sick pay etc when I made the application, merely confirmed I was employed. It was a form that the sales assistant ticked saying my application for a Debenhams card wouldn't be successful if I didn't take out the PPI. So I'm wondering why my length of employment matters now when it didn't then? I remember the company but no idea how long I worked there, maybe around a year?

You don't have to be, PPI was a non-advised sale. If you said you were employed, that's sufficient. Length of employment etc is just the stuff around the edges e.g. a newly employed person on probation is more at risk of losing their job than someone in a long term job. They tend to look at the sales process now how it should have been done, not how it was

Elaine60 wrote: »

So which is better? The fact I was consistently employed, or the fact I moved around a lot?

There is no better. There is only the truth (which you'd be expected to prove). If you said you were employed when taking out the card then that is your answer. If you say otherwise that would just suggest you committed fraud taking out the card

Elaine60

Nasqueron wrote: »

You don't have to be, PPI was a non-advised sale. If you said you were employed, that's sufficient. Length of employment etc is just the stuff around the edges e.g. a newly employed person on probation is more at risk of losing their job than someone in a long term job. They tend to look at the sales process now how it should have been done, not how it was



There is no better. There is only the truth (which you'd be expected to prove). If you said you were employed when taking out the card then that is your answer. If you say otherwise that would just suggest you committed fraud taking out the card

Sorry, the reference to sick pay was in response to another users reply to me and obviously, I've already told them the truth! I'm just trying to gauge what their decision might be based on the information I've given them.

[Deleted User]

Elaine60 wrote: »

Sorry, the reference to sick pay was in response to another users reply to me and obviously, I've already told them the truth! I'm just trying to gauge what their decision might be based on the information I've given them.

You've only told them the truth up to a point. You said you can't remember the period in question and the Bank have responded to your complaint asking for details of your employment at that time. This is to establish whether you were eligible for the insurance and is in response to whatever complaint reasons you gave.

Elaine60

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You've only told them the truth up to a point. You said you can't remember the period in question and the Bank have responded to your complaint asking for details of your employment at that time. This is to establish whether you were eligible for the insurance and is in response to whatever complaint reasons you gave.

I've told them the truth. Being unable to remember something specific is not "the truth up to a point". I've told them I can't remember the exact dates but worked there for approximately a year, leaving the position in summer 1994. The reason for my complaint was that I was told I wouldn't be successful in my application for the card if I didn't take out the PPI.