Challenging Aassumptions made by Barcalycard?

Deepblue

Hi


Barclaycard have confirmed that I had a PPI policy on a series of credit cards between 1999 and 2010.


I instigated a claim because I have no recollection of how or when I was sold the policy (believe I had had other cards prior to that) so wished them to establish that I was properly advised in 1999.


They have responded that they cannot establish how the policy was taken out, but they ASSUME I would have been given appropriate advice, and therefore as I was under 65 and a UK resident in full employment they will not pay out.


Is this good enough?


I realise they may not have paper records from 20 yrs ago (I haven't!) but given that miss-selling was rife, is it allowable for them to assume they were in the right, and I was told about it. Who does the benefit of the doubt lie with?

They have however refunded me £1,735 in interest and compensation under the Plevin rules, so I am wondering if I should just accept this, or if I have reasonable grounds to pursue things further.


Any experienced advice is most welcome.

societys_child

I realise they may not have paper records from 20 yrs ago (I haven't!)

If they have no records (not surprising after 2 decades) then as the accuser, it's up to you to provide the evidence.

Nasqueron

PPI was not an advised sale so beyond checking the basics such as employment and age, that was all they needed to do, you will not win a miss-selling complaint on that basis.


You can refer the case to the FOS if you wish within 6 months and can safely cash the cheque as, if the FOS agree you were miss-sold, you'll just get the balance minus the Plevin payout

Deepblue

My thanks to both respondents. Dead horses get enough flogging.. Sounds like I should be grateful for the Plevin money and just move on then.

Regards.

dunstonh

hey have responded that they cannot establish how the policy was taken out, but they ASSUME I would have been given appropriate advice, and therefore as I was under 65 and a UK resident in full employment they will not pay out.


Is this good enough?

It is the correct assumption under English law. You are assumed to have done the right thing unless the balance of probability suggests otherwise.

but given that miss-selling was rife,

Under half of current PPI complaints on credit cards are not succeeding. So, you cannot use that argument.