RBS Credit Card PPI - Recent & new contact from the Bank out of nowhere...

DynamoCappo

9 years ago, I had lodged a claim against mis-selling of the PPI on my RBS credit card and the claim was rejected by the RBS. 
It ended up with me going to the Ombudsman but I apparently missed out on the appeal with it being time barred (letter to them arrived a day late to the 6 month appeal period) 
There's a chain of it all here.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5210764/rbs-credit-card-ppi-claim-more-than-6-months-after-final-letter/p2

I had had payouts from RBS loan PPIs during the same period. From what I gather the loans were structured differently and there was no dubiety about their mis-selling. The credit card issue always rankled with me but I had forgotten all about it until yesterday...

I got a letter from them mentioning the previous case and that they were conducting a review of matters "specifically in relation to any alternative cover you held at the time" and mentions that I may have had employment sickness cover or redundancy pay or access to savings (which I had mentioned to them in my previous complaint as my parents would have covered any incurred credit card fees at the time if I was without pay) 

I would have thought that should have formed part of their initial checks and I still feel they're going out of their way to block these payouts compared to their loans but that's for them to decide, I guess. 

There's a form to fill in. I take it it's just a matter of answering it honestly and truthfully? Are there any specific points I should highlight beyond what they're asking? 

I would have had some form of employment benefits / redundancy pay options at the time as I was in full time work after completing my apprenticeship but I'd have to check how that might have been calculated in relation to my wage. 

It mentions Income Protection Insurance (IPI) which I honestly can't remember for sure whether I had at the time or not.

Any advice would be appreciated. 

dunstonh

I got a letter from them mentioning the previous case and that they were conducting a review of matters "specifically in relation to any alternative cover you held at the time" and mentions that I may have had employment sickness cover or redundancy pay or access to savings (which I had mentioned to them in my previous complaint as my parents would have covered any incurred credit card fees at the time if I was without pay) 
I would have thought that should have formed part of their initial checks and I still feel they're going out of their way to block these payouts compared to their loans but that's for them to decide, I guess. 

This means that they have identified an issue with the person that was checking the cases or a failure in their process and they are going back over cases handled by that person or the period of the failure.

There's a form to fill in. I take it it's just a matter of answering it honestly and truthfully? Are there any specific points I should highlight beyond what they're asking? 

Just answer it truthfully.  Don't make false claims as they can ask for supporting evidence (and that has happened).

I would have had some form of employment benefits / redundancy pay options at the time as I was in full time work after completing my apprenticeship but I'd have to check how that might have been calculated in relation to my wage. 

And do check as the banks have a database of workplace benefits that they built up during the PPI complaints period.

It mentions Income Protection Insurance (IPI) which I honestly can't remember for sure whether I had at the time or not

You would know if you had this.  It would have been a monthly direct debit to an insurance company.  Typically around the £30-£150pm range.   They have long applications medically underwritten with GP details supplied.   You would be hard pushed to forget you held one of these (most do not).

DynamoCappo

dunstonh said:

I got a letter from them mentioning the previous case and that they were conducting a review of matters "specifically in relation to any alternative cover you held at the time" and mentions that I may have had employment sickness cover or redundancy pay or access to savings (which I had mentioned to them in my previous complaint as my parents would have covered any incurred credit card fees at the time if I was without pay) 
I would have thought that should have formed part of their initial checks and I still feel they're going out of their way to block these payouts compared to their loans but that's for them to decide, I guess. 

This means that they have identified an issue with the person that was checking the cases or a failure in their process and they are going back over cases handled by that person or the period of the failure.

There's a form to fill in. I take it it's just a matter of answering it honestly and truthfully? Are there any specific points I should highlight beyond what they're asking? 

Just answer it truthfully.  Don't make false claims as they can ask for supporting evidence (and that has happened).

I would have had some form of employment benefits / redundancy pay options at the time as I was in full time work after completing my apprenticeship but I'd have to check how that might have been calculated in relation to my wage. 

And do check as the banks have a database of workplace benefits that they built up during the PPI complaints period.

It mentions Income Protection Insurance (IPI) which I honestly can't remember for sure whether I had at the time or not

You would know if you had this.  It would have been a monthly direct debit to an insurance company.  Typically around the £30-£150pm range.   They have long applications medically underwritten with GP details supplied.   You would be hard pushed to forget you held one of these (most do not).

Perfect. Thanks for the reply. That's good to know and understand why the case is possibly being revisited. 

I'm fortunate that, while working for a different company now, I'm still in the same industry so I can check with our admin team what the terms would have been for someone in my role in 1999. It turns out I wouldn't have had SSP but would have had Statutory Redundancy Pay as part of the completion of my apprenticeship and continued employment to full tradesman level so I can complete that easily enough. 

I'm erring on the site that I wouldn't have had IPI like you say but I had so many varying cards over the period with different payment protection type add ons I couldn't be 100% certain. It was also more two decades ago. I'll double check on that front. 

The only other thing was that the ask about savings. Now, I didn't have any myself but my parents had kept money in accounts for me and would have given me access to cash if required. It says "Did you have any savings?"

Can I say yes to that on the proviso it was from my parents and then detail how much it was and how they were held (savings accounts / ISAs etc) ?

They essentially saved the digs money I was paying to them at the time and then gifted it back to me in a lump sum (which was used as the deposit for my house as it turned out years down the line) 

[Deleted User]

You cannot use parents savings in this scenario, the FOS will never accept that they will use their money (which they may need) to bail you out. If you lie and say you had savings and they ask you to prove it, you will ruin your case anyway.

The point of the questionnaire is about how you were when you were sold the product not what you had afterwards or could have got (as you could easily have lost your apprenticeship).

dunstonh

I'm fortunate that, while working for a different company now, I'm still in the same industry so I can check with our admin team what the terms would have been for someone in my role in 1999. It turns out I wouldn't have had SSP but would have had Statutory Redundancy Pay as part of the completion of my apprenticeship and continued employment to full tradesman level so I can complete that easily enough. 

You can complete it easily enough but SSP means that PPI was suitable to have.   Redundancy packages are rarely taken into account as they only pay out on a structured redundancy where the company is solvent.  If insolvent then they do not.

I'm erring on the site that I wouldn't have had IPI like you say but I had so many varying cards over the period with different payment protection type add ons I couldn't be 100% certain. It was also more two decades ago. I'll double check on that front. 

When they were talking about income protection insurance they are talking about a proper insurance policy for income protection. Not PPI on other cards or debts. i.e. an income protection that pays an income for the rest of your working life if you become ill.       The vast majority of these are put in place by IFAs under advice and were not available to buy direct.  Some FAs also could do it but they were never sold as part of a credit card or loan.       Income protection (or permanent health insurance to give it the old generic name) is the best type of income protection and trumps PPI in quality and coverage.    I would estimate that less than 5 in 100 have it.

The only other thing was that the ask about savings. Now, I didn't have any myself but my parents had kept money in accounts for me and would have given me access to cash if required. It says "Did you have any savings?"

Parental money is not your money.  It doesnt get included as money you could have.

DynamoCappo

Deleted_User said:

You cannot use parents savings in this scenario, the FOS will never accept that they will use their money (which they may need) to bail you out. If you lie and say you had savings and they ask you to prove it, you will ruin your case anyway.

The point of the questionnaire is about how you were when you were sold the product not what you had afterwards or could have got (as you could easily have lost your apprenticeship).

Thanks. My apprenticeship was guaranteed by the Scottish Joint Industry Board at the time which protects apprentices and guarantees a job with another firm if youre existing firm goes under if that makes a difference? 

I was time served by the point of the CC application as well and my length of service carried over from the four years apprenticeship into my 5th year with the firm. 

The redundancy was 1/2 week per year for the apprenticeship and then 1 week per year there after. 
Given the hire and fire nature of the trade, it is a more common pay out than you might have in an office staff environment where employees are salaried. 

[Deleted User]

Minimal redundancy pay then, maybe 4 weeks worth of pay to cover all your bills for the time it would take you to find a new job and get started, get paid etc. Just be honest on the application and see what they come back with, you may be expected to provide evidence, hence why parent's savings are irrelevant 

DynamoCappo

Deleted_User said:

Minimal redundancy pay then, maybe 4 weeks worth of pay to cover all your bills for the time it would take you to find a new job and get started, get paid etc. Just be honest on the application and see what they come back with, you may be expected to provide evidence, hence why parent's savings are irrelevant 

Part of the reason I mentioned my parents savings was that I was still living at home. I didn't have bills as such as an agreement to pay "digs" in the form of cash that they were saving for me.  

The money was paid into a savings account in their name. 

[Deleted User]

DynamoCappo said:

Deleted_User said:

Minimal redundancy pay then, maybe 4 weeks worth of pay to cover all your bills for the time it would take you to find a new job and get started, get paid etc. Just be honest on the application and see what they come back with, you may be expected to provide evidence, hence why parent's savings are irrelevant 

Part of the reason I mentioned my parents savings was that I was still living at home. I didn't have bills as such as an agreement to pay "digs" in the form of cash that they were saving for me.  

The money was paid into a savings account in their name. 

Again, the FOS categorically DO NOT accept savings that are for someone else i.e. in your parents name, could be used to cover your debts. There are multiple case examples of this on the FOS site - the money is owned by your parents, it's theirs to pay off the bills, emergencies etc as far as the FOS are concerned. They do not accept the notion that a third party could pay your debts for you whether savings or otherwise.