Citi Card transferring to Opus & PPI

caz72me · 1 June 2011 at 10:19AM

Hi, sorry if this question has already been asked, I did do a google search first on the subject but could not find the answer. Does anyone know how I would go about claiming back PPI from Citi card although Opus have taken over the card. I have recently taken a loan to cover our credit card debts so the card is Zero balance but sometime after taking the card out with Citi I noticed that we were paying PPI, it took me a few letters and eventually a phone call to get it cancelled as it is of no use to me, I can't remember how I applied for the card as it was a while ago but I know I would not have knowingly accepted PPI as my fiance is the main wage earner and he was self employed at the time and I worked at a hospital and my job was very secure but only worked 16hrs a week. I have lots of pre existing medical conditions and not a single question was asked about these so I am pretty certain it was mis-sold. My question is who do I approach about reclaiming, Opus who have taken over the card or back to Citi who made the charges?

any advice appreciated

thanks

Tracy21 · 26 March 2013 at 6:10PM

Hi,

I have recently submitted a PPI claim to Opus who took over my citicard.
They have confirmed PPI on the CC but rejected my claim.
I have now sent to the ombudsman... so any previous citicard holders who transferred over go through opus.....
I have been told that they refuse most claims first off as a delaying tactic so hopefully the FOS will see differently... however the FOS has a back log of between 6 - 18mths so will need to be patient!!!

Hope this helps.

-taff · 26 March 2013 at 6:15PM

No one refuses a complaint the first time as a delaying tactic.

Tracy21 · 26 March 2013 at 9:04PM

So why would the FSA uphold so many complaints?
I dont understand why so many complaints are rejected by the creditor then the FOS then overturn the decision!

[Deleted User] · 26 March 2013 at 9:23PM

Tracy21 wrote: »

I dont understand why so many complaints are rejected by the creditor then the FOS then overturn the decision!

It has nothing to do with "delaying tactics". The Lender actually has to pay FOS a hefty fee for every complaint referral regardless of whether the Ombudsman upholds the complaint!

The fact is that the banks are snowed under with PPI complaints and staff are under stress to deal with as many as possible. This means mistakes are sometimes made. However, there are no banks who deliberately reject valid complaints.

I don't know who told you that most claims are rejected "first off as a delaying tactic", but I'd ignore them in future.

You don't say what the nature of your PPI complaint was, nor what the Bank said in response, but be aware that FOS won't necessarily overturn the Bank's decision unless you had valid mis-selling reasons.

Stupid_Question · 26 March 2013 at 10:50PM

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It has nothing to do with "delaying tactics". The Lender actually has to pay FOS a hefty fee for every complaint referral regardless of whether the Ombudsman upholds the complaint!

The fact is that the banks are snowed under with PPI complaints and staff are under stress to deal with as many as possible. This means mistakes are sometimes made. However, there are no banks who deliberately reject valid complaints.

I don't know who told you that most claims are rejected "first off as a delaying tactic", but I'd ignore them in future.

You don't say what the nature of your PPI complaint was, nor what the Bank said in response, but be aware that FOS won't necessarily overturn the Bank's decision unless you had valid mis-selling reasons.

The whole FOS process is a right cheek, that's not the worst part in my eyes, the worst part is making you put a ludicrously priced FOS leaflet in every final response that you can obviously only buy
from them!

Tracy21 wrote: »

So why would the FSA uphold so many complaints?
I dont understand why so many complaints are rejected by the creditor then the FOS then overturn the decision!

The reason FOS overturn so many rejections is because they are consumer biased and after a while it's just easier to stop challenging and pay the customer.

[Deleted User] · 26 March 2013 at 11:35PM

Stupid_Question wrote: »

The whole FOS process is a right cheek, that's not the worst part in my eyes, the worst part is making you put a ludicrously priced FOS leaflet in every final response that you can obviously only buy from them!

Well, government set them up to be self financing and I don't think complainants should pay, do you?

Stupid_Question wrote: »

The reason FOS overturn so many rejections is because they are consumer biased and after a while it's just easier to stop challenging and pay the customer.

That's a gross oversimplification of the whole debacle in my opinion. I doubt it's "easier", but it certainly clears the huge backlog a lot quicker!

Stupid_Question · 27 March 2013 at 9:31AM

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Well, government set them up to be self financing and I don't think complainants should pay, do you?

That's a gross oversimplification of the whole debacle in my opinion. I doubt it's "easier", but it certainly clears the huge backlog a lot quicker!

I think that if a CMC is referring endless complaints the FOS levy should be divided between the business and the CMC. I also think there's definitely a case for consumers having to make a contribution if it's decided the business original decision was fair.

I don't see it as a gross over simplification, in my experience the FOS take the starting position that the lender is wrong and work from there whereas they should just be impartially looking at the facts of what's happened.

When they are continually requesting information with no joined up thinking i.e. i requested this for a complaint last week, im sure their procedure hasn't changed since lets just use that information; and completely misunderstanding their role in the process it is easier just to pay them to go away!

[Deleted User] · 27 March 2013 at 9:51AM

Stupid_Question wrote: »

I think that if a CMC is referring endless complaints the FOS levy should be divided between the business and the CMC. I also think there's definitely a case for consumers having to make a contribution if it's decided the business original decision was fair.

Can you imagine the headlines if complainants had to pay? Even if it was only cases which were not upheld by FOS, the newspapers would still take the stance that the rich and greedy banks were making the poor customer pay for their own past sharp business practices.

I do agree the CMC should have to pay a share, but this would doubtless also be passed onto the customer.

Stupid_Question · 27 March 2013 at 10:17AM

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Can you imagine the headlines if complainants had to pay? Even if it was only cases which were not upheld by FOS, the newspapers would still take the stance that the rich and greedy banks were making the poor customer pay for their own past sharp business practices.

I do agree the CMC should have to pay a share, but this would doubtless also be passed onto the customer.

Oh it'd be a nightmare, it's probably the best the systems going to be as it is now.

Although there is the argument that there's no massive outcry against CMCS charging for their services on completion, so why shouldn't FOS be similar.

It just irritates me that an impartial adjudicator appears to not be impartial and more interested in making as much money as possible - why exactly do they need a swanky office building in London!?

[Deleted User] · 27 March 2013 at 9:35PM

Stupid_Question wrote: »

- why exactly do they need a swanky office building in London!?

Because they're a QUANGO, of course.;)

Citi Card transferring to Opus & PPI

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free