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!
Santander
Options
Comments
-
Nasqueron - As I didnt show any ID to get the storecard the fact that the ID box wasnt ticked when I signed the form wouldnt have raised any suspision to me at the time - No ID shown , no box ticked = no fraud on my behalf.
I wasnt employed at the time so no tick in an employment status box also wouldnt have alerted me to a problem. No employment declared - no box ticked = no fraud on my behalf.
I wouldnt have given an incorrect maiden name for my Mother so Id be pretty confident it wasnt on the form when I signed it or Im pretty sure I would have noticed it.
All my other details were on the agreement when I signed it - name , address , length of time at address etc so NO I didnt sign a blank form and NO I didnt commit fraud.0 -
KaysGranny wrote: »Im convinced the assistant got me to sign the agreement BEFORE she filled in most of the other parts
Just a mostly blank form, then?KaysGranny wrote: »NO I didnt sign a blank form
With no evidence on your part to even suggest this happened it's hardly surprising your complaint was rejected. The PPI would have been itemised separately on your statement each month, so (if you didn't want it) why are you only complaining years later?KaysGranny wrote: »and THEN she ticked the PPI box....
Isn't the more likely scenario that the sales assistant filled the form in your presence and simply made some sloppy errors which you failed to notice and foolishly signed without reading?
Regardless, I can't see you having any success with these allegations as you have provided no evidence. If you refer this to FOS, they will be looking at the same lack of evidence.0 -
KaysGranny wrote: »Nasqueron - As I didnt show any ID to get the storecard the fact that the ID box wasnt ticked when I signed the form wouldnt have raised any suspision to me at the time - No ID shown , no box ticked = no fraud on my behalf.
I wasnt employed at the time so no tick in an employment status box also wouldnt have alerted me to a problem. No employment declared - no box ticked = no fraud on my behalf.
I wouldnt have given an incorrect maiden name for my Mother so Id be pretty confident it wasnt on the form when I signed it or Im pretty sure I would have noticed it.
All my other details were on the agreement when I signed it - name , address , length of time at address etc so NO I didnt sign a blank form and NO I didnt commit fraud.
As I said, there were 2 options, 1, fraud, 2, you signed a blank form and allowed the staff member to fill it in which is stupid. So as such, you're admitting that you signed up without reading anything and without filling in the details yourself, allowing the assistant to do it. However, PPI would have been listed on every statement on the card where it had a balance, the fact you didn't complain at the time gives weight to the case of the bank that you in fact were happy with it. Certainly anyone who was unhappy with a charge on their account that they did not know of would have complained straight away, that first month they got their statement, so again this is weight to the case you wanted it.
You are wasting time "fighting" the bank, they have their proof you wanted the PPI and are now trying it on so you might as well go to the FOS if you still want to argue it as you only have 6 months from the rejection. Do note though, not reading your statements and allowing staff members to fill in a form after you had signed it to show you were ok with them doing it are not complaint reasons.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 -
Hi,
I intimated a PPI claim relating to a Debenhams storecard in 2013. PPI was added to the card bundled with Accidental Damage/theft cover free of charge. It was sold at the till based on being told it was a no brainer to take given the Accidental Damage and theft cover was free. No discussion about the PPI element - costs or commission.
Santander declined the PPI claim.
Just received an offer based on Plevin for the interest on the commission. I spoke with them to clarify a number of things.
1. They are only repaying commission above the 50% value + the interest on that amount.
2. They say I cannot resurrect the PPI claim itself and the FCA would say its over 6 months since rejected so I cant do anything.
2 thoughts I would like opinions on
a) Would you have accepted any product if you were told that you were paying 50% commission? Personally, had I been aware of that, the answer is No Way
b) Anyone know whether what Santander are saying about not being able to resurrect the claim is correct?
Thanks in advance0 -
Plevin only applies to rejected complaints.a) Would you have accepted any product if you were told that you were paying 50% commission? Personally, had I been aware of that, the answer is No Way
b) Anyone know whether what Santander are saying about not being able to resurrect the claim is correct?
Your complaint is already over and Plevin is not in any way an opportunity for you to "try again".
So, no, you can't resurrect the complaint six years on.
Plevin is basically a technicality, so it's irrelevant whether you'd have purchased if you had been aware of the level of commission.
There really is also no point in you querying the refund you are being awarded, the tipping point defined by the regulator is 50% and so you will only receive a refund of anything over that (plus interest).
It's also not an "offer" which can be negotiated..0 -
Hi,
I intimated a PPI claim relating to a Debenhams storecard in 2013. PPI was added to the card bundled with Accidental Damage/theft cover free of charge. It was sold at the till based on being told it was a no brainer to take given the Accidental Damage and theft cover was free. No discussion about the PPI element - costs or commission.
Santander declined the PPI claim.
Non-advised sale, doesn't need to be and you can't prove any of that happened anyway
Just received an offer based on Plevin for the interest on the commission. I spoke with them to clarify a number of things.
1. They are only repaying commission above the 50% value + the interest on that amount.
2. They say I cannot resurrect the PPI claim itself and the FCA would say its over 6 months since rejected so I cant do anything.
1) That is the ruling on Plevin yes, over 50% was considered excessive so you get that back
2) If they rejected your case you have 6 months to go to the FOS (not FCA), outside of that 6 months it's time barred.2 thoughts I would like opinions on
a) Would you have accepted any product if you were told that you were paying 50% commission? Personally, had I been aware of that, the answer is No Way
That's the whole point of the Plevin case, 50% commission is the tipping point, below that it's okb) Anyone know whether what Santander are saying about not being able to resurrect the claim is correct?
Thanks in advance
Yes if it's more than 6 months since rejectionSam 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 -
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »No, Plevin is about undisclosed commission-not excessive.
As already noted, it's six years since this complaint was rejected.
Undisclosed or not, the Plevin contract only covers anything over 50% of the PPI cost as commission, if it was undisclosed but under 50% you don't get anything
It says it was initiated in 2013, not closed in 2013Sam 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 -
Plevin is the surname of the person who brought a case to court about undisclosed commission. It is not in any way a "contract".the Plevin contract
I think you need to read around this particular subject, Nazz!
If the complaint has been going on for six years, that has to be some kind of record...It says it was initiated in 2013, not closed in 2013
0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Plevin is the surname of the person who brought a case to court about undisclosed commission. It is not in any way a "contract".
I think you need to read around this particular subject, Nazz!
If the complaint has been going on for six years, that has to be some kind of record...
It's a typo, Plevin case, not contract
Any which way, the judges ruled that only 50% commission or higher is an issue, so even if commission was not disclosed it wouldn't matter if under.
Santander have looked at older cases again, there are examples on this forum so it's not impossible even for a 2013 case that they have looked at it now and decided to reject but offer PlevinSam 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
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