Barclays Rejection Comments for PPI claim
Options
klarac
Posts: 5 Forumite
Hi...
Newbie poster seeking advice please (so be gentle please)!
I have just received a rejection letter from Barclays for a PPI claim and wanted to know the best way to respond please as it turns out I have had PPI on my current count since the early/ mid 1990's.
Their comments:
"About our decision- following investigation I have been unable to identify how your application for PPI was made. I have therefore assumed that at the point of applying for PPI we gave you advice on taking out this policy"
"You were eligible as you were over 18, a UK resident and in full time employment"
"I am satisfied that the policy was suitable for your needs at the time of sale- the information we provided was clear, fair and not misleading and we took adequate steps to ensure you met the requirements"
"An independent review took place that covered the time your policy was sold. I am therefore satisfied you were provided enough info to make an informed decision"
In terms of my circumstances:
I never knowingly applied for, asked for, agreed to or even required PPI insurance (was quite a shock to find it on there).
They are right about me being employed… etc, but how can they just enroll me onto a policy without my consent?
I am sorry for the long winded email, but hopefully it gives someone more knowledgeable than me, enough of an overview to give me some advice on the next best steps to take.
Or should I just accept the decision and move on?
Thanks in advance!
Newbie poster seeking advice please (so be gentle please)!
I have just received a rejection letter from Barclays for a PPI claim and wanted to know the best way to respond please as it turns out I have had PPI on my current count since the early/ mid 1990's.
Their comments:
"About our decision- following investigation I have been unable to identify how your application for PPI was made. I have therefore assumed that at the point of applying for PPI we gave you advice on taking out this policy"
"You were eligible as you were over 18, a UK resident and in full time employment"
"I am satisfied that the policy was suitable for your needs at the time of sale- the information we provided was clear, fair and not misleading and we took adequate steps to ensure you met the requirements"
"An independent review took place that covered the time your policy was sold. I am therefore satisfied you were provided enough info to make an informed decision"
In terms of my circumstances:
I never knowingly applied for, asked for, agreed to or even required PPI insurance (was quite a shock to find it on there).
They are right about me being employed… etc, but how can they just enroll me onto a policy without my consent?
I am sorry for the long winded email, but hopefully it gives someone more knowledgeable than me, enough of an overview to give me some advice on the next best steps to take.
Or should I just accept the decision and move on?
Thanks in advance!
0
Comments
-
"About our decision- following investigation I have been unable to identify how your application for PPI was made. I have therefore assumed that at the point of applying for PPI we gave you advice on taking out this policy"
That works in your favour as advised has higher requirements than non-advised."You were eligible as you were over 18, a UK resident and in full time employment"
That verifies you were eligible for cover (and removes any complain on that part)"I am satisfied that the policy was suitable for your needs at the time of sale- the information we provided was clear, fair and not misleading and we took adequate steps to ensure you met the requirements"
"An independent review took place that covered the time your policy was sold. I am therefore satisfied you were provided enough info to make an informed decision"
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, or the process was deemed non-compliant or the paperwork contains errors of a relevant nature, that would be the expected position.I never knowingly applied for, asked for, agreed to or even required PPI insurance (was quite a shock to find it on there).
A very weak complaint. The shorter the timescale between it first appearing and the complaint, the more credible the complaint is. However, the longer the timescale, the less credible that becomes. You have being paying it for 20 years. That is around 240 statements of it appearing on there. Yet despite paying it that long and seeing it each month, you are shocked to find yourself paying it. You lack credibility and without evidence of wrongdoing or another failing, you would not expect that point to be upheld.They are right about me being employed… etc, but how can they just enroll me onto a policy without my consent?
The onus is on you to prove the wrongdoing if no evidence of wrongdoing exists at their end. So, you would have to prove it was without your consent. You would also have to persuade the complaints handler that despite seeing it every month on your statement for 20 years, why did you not complain about it earlier.Or should I just accept the decision and move on?
I am not going to tell you whether you should accept it or not. I have instead chosen to focus on the issues you have with your complaint.
However, here is an FOS outcome to a complaint that is similar to yours in timescale and no documentation and similar allegations.
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=26282I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
What you effectively complaining about is that you haven't checked your monthly statements…for twenty years!:eek:I never knowingly applied for, asked for, agreed to or even required PPI insurance (was quite a shock to find it on there).
It's a myth sponsored by claim companies that PPI was added routinely without the knowledge and permission of the customer. In general, claiming no knowledge of the PPI is usually just a simple matter of forgetting about it..
However, even if the PPI was added without your permission (unlikely), with no documentation or other evidence to support your accusation there really was only ever going to be one outcome to your complaint.
You ask how you can "respond" to the Bank's rejection letter. The answer is detailed in the full and final response you have received which tells you that you have the right to refer your complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service if you remain dissatisfied.0 -
Thank you for your advice/ comments dunstonh.
Of course, in hindsight I should have noticed/ questioned the charge earlier, but it was a small amount on the statement, so did not catch the eye and I assumed (obviously wrongly) it was some sort of fee for using my overdraft (as it was listed as o/d protection).
@Moneyineptitude, Not my proudest moment...but a small charge each month for what I thought was for the overdraft did not set any alarm bells off.
There is no point in debating with you if they did or did not add without my permission as that does not change the situation and you have your opinion on the matter clear.0 -
Hi...
Newbie poster seeking advice please (so be gentle please)!
I have just received a rejection letter from Barclays for a PPI claim and wanted to know the best way to respond please as it turns out I have had PPI on my current count since the early/ mid 1990's.
Their comments:
"About our decision- following investigation I have been unable to identify how your application for PPI was made. I have therefore assumed that at the point of applying for PPI we gave you advice on taking out this policy"
"You were eligible as you were over 18, a UK resident and in full time employment"
"I am satisfied that the policy was suitable for your needs at the time of sale- the information we provided was clear, fair and not misleading and we took adequate steps to ensure you met the requirements"
"An independent review took place that covered the time your policy was sold. I am therefore satisfied you were provided enough info to make an informed decision"
In terms of my circumstances:
I never knowingly applied for, asked for, agreed to or even required PPI insurance (was quite a shock to find it on there).
They are right about me being employed… etc, but how can they just enroll me onto a policy without my consent?
I am sorry for the long winded email, but hopefully it gives someone more knowledgeable than me, enough of an overview to give me some advice on the next best steps to take.
Or should I just accept the decision and move on?
Thanks in advance!
From their opening comments, it sounds like the bank have partly based their decision on an assumption about how the ppi policy was applied to your account. Can they not find your original application form on their microfilm systems if the account is still active they may have it somewhere. Ask them to check again or send a SAR.0 -
The point is that there is nothing to gain from debating about it with anyone here OR the Bank unless you can provide evidence that this actually happened.There is no point in debating with you if they did or did not add without my permission
As I said, it's a myth used by claims companies to attract more customers. It may well have happened to you (and others) but with no evidence and twenty years having passed you are unlikely to progress any further.
Did you read the link Dunstonh provided?
That will cost the OP £10 to confirm what they already say in the rejection letter?Ask them to check again or send a SAR.
Twenty years on, they have no idea how the PPI was applied for, but are not persuaded that the PPI was added without the knowledge and permission of the customer.0 -
Well in my own case, I knew I had PPI and agreed to it etc. So, I'm usually quizzical when people say they have been paying for something for a significant time but did not know it. That said, I know it can happen as years ago, my sister found she was paying a yearly AA breakdown subscription needlessly but did not realise for some time - nothing like 20 years tho.
What I am a bit curious about is that the letter states they have no way of knowing how the application was made and thus no records. Dunstoph states that it is up to the customer to prove wrongdoing, however, if the bank does not have any documentation, does that not raise at least an element of doubt (aside from the 20yrs existence), i.e. customer is always right?0 -
What I am a bit curious about is that the letter states they have no way of knowing how the application was made and thus no records. Dunstoph states that it is up to the customer to prove wrongdoing, however, if the bank does not have any documentation, does that not raise at least an element of doubt (aside from the 20yrs existence), i.e. customer is always right?
The customer is not always right. That is an American catchphrase. Not a legal position.
The data protection act requires the disposal of documentation over time. Firms are more willing to hold on to records nowadays but when the DPA was first introduced, nearly everything was getting destroyed. It was only later that is was realised that it was not as bad as that. However, culling is still done today and required to be done.
Remember that a wet signature is not required for insurance. Plus, this was 20 years ago. And that insurance regulation didnt start until January 2005. So, you shouldnt expect pre 2005 cases to have post 2005 requirements.
If you read that FOS response dealing with an 18 year old sale you will see that the fact paperwork missing made it more difficult but that it did not sway the outcome in any way. There was no evidence to the contrary. It was measured on advised status and the issues over suitability, eligibility and need where measured.
In UK law, he who asserts must prove. In FOS terms, that still applies but with a lesser level than the law would need. A balance of probability. So, lack of admin would hurt the lender a little but the fact it was 18 years/240 statements without complaint would hurt the complainer. This is why so many end up looking only at eligibility to claim and whether the policy met the requirement.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
The customer is not always right. That is an American catchphrase. Not a legal position.
Ok - yes it is a catchphrase - nothing legal whatsoever. But it usually means where there is reasonable/equal doubt, the customer is given the advantage, though clearly not 20 yrs later!In UK law, he who asserts must prove. In FOS terms, that still applies but with a lesser level than the law would need. A balance of probability.
But does this mean that customer and supplier are equal or is there a balance of leniency towards the customer? I know in the eyes of the law that it is equal but I would assume most reputable suppliers would accept responsibility in a truly equal probability - not as an acceptance of liability, but as good practice.0 -
Certainly FOS do lean more towards the customer's position, but not usually in "hearsay" cases as clear cut as the subject of this thread. The OP may well have thought the variable PPI amounts paid each month were "Overdraft fees" and may indeed have suffered the indignity of having PPI forced upon him. However, the balance of probability is that the poster more likely simply didn't check his statements and has forgotten agreeing to the insurance two decades ago.But does this mean that customer and supplier are equal or is there a balance of leniency towards the customer?
My own (successful) complaint, concluded two years ago, involved front loading of PPI on a chain of consolidated loans. The Bank had to remind me that I had consolidated one more loan than I actually complained about and the period in question was only eight years-not twenty.0 -
ok - yes it is a catchphrase - nothing legal whatsoever. But it usually means where there is reasonable/equal doubt, the customer is given the advantage, though clearly not 20 yrs later!
The FOS is generally consumer biased. It does not require as much evidence as a court would. However, it still generally follows the law with a slight bias.
Did you know that firms are reporting that over half of PPI complaints dont even have PPI? Do, you think that level of consumer honesty helps things?But does this mean that customer and supplier are equal or is there a balance of leniency towards the customer? I know in the eyes of the law that it is equal but I would assume most reputable suppliers would accept responsibility in a truly equal probability - not as an acceptance of liability, but as good practice.
It all comes back down to evidence. If there is enough to suggest wrongdoing that is relevant to the sale then it may not be enough for court but it could be enough for the FOS. However, if you have two positions (client and lender) which have different stories and no evidence to show any wrongdoing then it will nearly always go with the firm. if the firm has said things but found to be wrong then they lose credibility and even without evidence, the complaint could swing to the consumer as the more credible person. That can also go the other way. i.e. if the person complaining makes things up and are caught, then they lose credibility.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.9K Spending & Discounts
- 235.7K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.3K Life & Family
- 248.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards