Cahoot PPI, man from Santander said no! NEXT
Options
Rob50k
Posts: 53 Forumite
So I submitted a complaint to Santander regarding a PPI policy on a personal loan I didn't realise I had until I stumbled across some old paperwork heading for the shredder.
They have refused the complaint on the grounds that it was an online application and that I would have opted to have the PPI, they sent screen shots that don't show anything like a opt in button or information infact they are next useless in proving I was presented with a choice as to if I wanted the policy or not.
The loan was taken out about 10 years ago so my memory of it all is very vague, only thing I know is I wouldn't of knowingly opted to take out the insurance.
So I guess next step is ombudsman BUT, one thing did make me stop and question the whole thing, in the letter saying no they have made 2 glaring errors, firstly they state I didn't send back the questionnaire, which I did and also called them up to ensure it arrived which they confirmed and also confirmed they had the additional information I sent in. Then they also state that I was and Upholsterer working in London needing to work 16 hrs a week!!! I was a service manager in a car dealership in Southampton working full time????
Do I go back to them on the errors or just head to the Ombudsman highlighting the errors in the communications?
They have refused the complaint on the grounds that it was an online application and that I would have opted to have the PPI, they sent screen shots that don't show anything like a opt in button or information infact they are next useless in proving I was presented with a choice as to if I wanted the policy or not.
The loan was taken out about 10 years ago so my memory of it all is very vague, only thing I know is I wouldn't of knowingly opted to take out the insurance.
So I guess next step is ombudsman BUT, one thing did make me stop and question the whole thing, in the letter saying no they have made 2 glaring errors, firstly they state I didn't send back the questionnaire, which I did and also called them up to ensure it arrived which they confirmed and also confirmed they had the additional information I sent in. Then they also state that I was and Upholsterer working in London needing to work 16 hrs a week!!! I was a service manager in a car dealership in Southampton working full time????
Do I go back to them on the errors or just head to the Ombudsman highlighting the errors in the communications?
0
Comments
-
It may be worth highlighting the errors but neither would really impact your complaint unless you had some great employee benefits from the job that they didn't remember.
That said, do remember, in the UK the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt, not the accused to prove innocence ("he who asserts must prove").
Santander have stated that the insurance was opt-in online as that is what their records show. You must prove it was opt-out or wording was misleading as their stance is that their evidence is that you have opted-in (thus a "miss-buy" not a "miss-sale").
You can ask them about the errors but unless you have some new compelling evidence (such as a screenshot of the order) then you might as well send it to the FOS to look at (do it inside 6 months to avoid a time-bar). Santander may still reject it, they may auto-pay to avoid the FOS fee, who knows.0 -
As the accuser, the onus of "proof" is upon you not the Bank. You have accused them of mis-selling you PPI, but if you took out the finance and insurance online this means that you mis-bought rather than were mis-sold. There were no Bank staff present to (mis) sell it to you!They have refused the complaint on the grounds that it was an online application and that I would have opted to have the PPI, they sent screen shots that don't show anything like a opt in button or information infact they are next useless in proving I was presented with a choice as to if I wanted the policy or not.
But you then continued to pay it without question? The PPI would certainly have been itemised on the paper agreement you were sent, so why didn't you query it ten years ago?The loan was taken out about 10 years ago so my memory of it all is very vague, only thing I know is I wouldn't of knowingly opted to take out the insurance.
While this administrative error is an annoyance, it doesn't mean they have failed to consider your complaint properly.firstly they state I didn't send back the questionnaire, which I did and also called them up to ensure it arrived which they confirmed and also confirmed they had the additional information I sent in.
Again, since this error does not in any way affect your eligibility for Payment Protection Insurance, this does not mean they haven't considered the basis of your complaint. Working full time just means you had need of the insurance.Then they also state that I was and Upholsterer working in London needing to work 16 hrs a week!!! I was a service manager in a car dealership in Southampton working full time????
If it goes to FOS, it won't be Santander who "reject" the complaint. Any Auto-payment would already have been made if it were going to happen. I think you mean Santander mary choose to pay rather than incur the FOS fee, but this is unlikely unless the amount in question is considerably less than the Ombudsman charge.Santander may still reject it, they may auto-pay to avoid the FOS fee, who knows.0 -
Send it to FOS. Santander won't bother looking at it again, despite the fact they seem to have reviewed the wring case. Ignore all this rubbish about 'he who asserts' and 'onus of proof'.
Put the case to FOS and let them review it independently, that's what they are there for. Ask Santander for a copy of the form you submitted.0 -
Thanks for the replies,
To confirm, I only became aware of the PPI being on the loan when I cleared an old file of information for shredding a few weeks ago, the Loan was taken out in 2004 and paid off early in 2011. I admit I could have noticed the PPI element on the account statement when they were posted to me but I didn't, I wasn't having issues paying back the loan, the same amount was coming out the bank each month it was just paperwork that arrived and was filed, and I wasn't looking out for something I didn't know I had.
The only thing I know is that I would not have pro actively included protection Insurance at the point of sale, I was well aware of the product and ones similar as I had been selling similar alongside car finance for a few years. If Santander had sent me a screen print showing the section where I actively put a tick in the box and agreed to include it then fair enough, but they haven't Just a screen print of terms and conditions and another page which doesn't show anything to do with selecting to include or exclude PPI.
Just spoke to Santander on the phone who agreed they needed to clear up the anomalies on the letter as something is incorrect and the screen shots do not give me any information that shows I did activley add the policy.
They have a letter come backs team who will reply within 14 days. I'll give them the chance to review and come back to me and if not then I will send to the FOS as it is of no bother to me to do so and may bear a result.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »
If it goes to FOS, it won't be Santander who "reject" the complaint. Any Auto-payment would already have been made if it were going to happen. I think you mean Santander mary choose to pay rather than incur the FOS fee, but this is unlikely unless the amount in question is considerably less than the Ombudsman charge.
Yeah badly worded, I meant if they refer it to the FOS Santander might reject the option to avoid the FOS appeal and defend the case and ultimately appeal to the top level guyaddedvaluebob wrote: »Send it to FOS. Santander won't bother looking at it again, despite the fact they seem to have reviewed the wring case. Ignore all this rubbish about 'he who asserts' and 'onus of proof'.
OP states:
"They have refused the complaint on the grounds that it was an online application and that I would have opted to have the PPI, they sent screen shots that don't show anything like a opt in button or information infact they are next useless in proving I was presented with a choice as to if I wanted the policy or not."
-The issue is that a complaint that they didn't prove there was a choice or not is irrelevant as they do not have to, they have presented evidence stating it was an opt-in, therefore the OP needs to prove it was not, that is the way these things work.
OP states:
"The loan was taken out about 10 years ago so my memory of it all is very vague, only thing I know is I wouldn't of knowingly opted to take out the insurance."
Vague memory of events combined with evidence from Santander that it was opt-in not opt-out = rejection.
As I said, Santander might, on referral to the FOS, auto pay out, or they might opt to defend it0 -
That admission doesn't make the insurance mis-sold. It's a myth sponsored by claim companies that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of customers. Like you, most who are not aware of their PPI simply never read what they were signing or have simply forgotten about it.I admit I could have noticed the PPI element on the account statement when they were posted to me but I didn't
The problem is that you say this now with conviction, but at the time went on to actually pay PPI for seven years! That's hardly the action of someone who claims they never accept PPI and "was well aware of the product". If you were so vehemently against taking the insurance, why didn't you carefully check your agreement?The only thing I know is that I would not have pro actively included protection Insurance at the point of sale
They really aren't required to provide proof, they just have to consider your complaint on the balance of probabilities. If the burden were on the accused instead of the accuser then I could complain that you owe me £1000 for example and you would have to prove you don't rather than vice versa.If Santander had sent me a screen print showing the section where I actively put a tick in the box and agreed to include it then fair enough
I wouldn't hold out too much hope that your two "glaring errors" will in any way change the original findings of the bank's investigation.spoke to Santander on the phone who agreed they needed to clear up the anomalies
I'd also be careful that by entering into further correspondence with the Bank that you miss the Ombudsman's six month deadline for referrals. Do note that it's the date of the original rejection which starts the six month countdown.I'll give them the chance to review and come back to me and if not then I will send to the FOS as it is of no bother to me to do so and may bear a result.
That assumes that FOS will uphold the complaint, of course. That is by no means certain.I meant if they refer it to the FOS Santander might reject the option to avoid the FOS appeal and defend the case and ultimately appeal to the top level guy0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »That admission doesn't make the insurance mis-sold. It's a myth sponsored by claim companies that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of customers. Like you, most who are not aware of their PPI simply never read what they were signing or have simply forgotten about it.
The problem is that you say this now with conviction, but at the time went on to actually pay PPI for seven years! That's hardly the action of someone who claims they never accept PPI and "was well aware of the product". If you were so vehemently against taking the insurance, why didn't you carefully check your agreement?
They really aren't required to provide proof, they just have to consider your complaint on the balance of probabilities. If the burden were on the accused instead of the accuser then I could complain that you owe me £1000 for example and you would have to prove you don't rather than vice versa.
I wouldn't hold out too much hope that your two "glaring errors" will in any way change the original findings of the bank's investigation.
I'd also be careful that by entering into further correspondence with the Bank that you miss the Ombudsman's six month deadline for referrals. Do note that it's the date of the original rejection which starts the six month countdown.
That assumes that FOS will uphold the complaint, of course. That is by no means certain.
OP, just stick with it and send it to FOS, lots of people on here are very judgemental of your chances of success but in reality no-one knows either the full circumstances at the time of sale or the reasons you are complaining0 -
addedvaluebob wrote: »OP, just stick with it and send it to FOS, lots of people on here are very judgemental of your chances of success but in reality no-one knows either the full circumstances at the time of sale or the reasons you are complaining
I told him that in the very first post AND said he had to mind the 6 month time window.
You clearly have an anti-bank view, fine.
However, do think about the harm you can do to potential cases to suggest to people that you don't have to worry about burden of proof etc. Reflect on how it would harm the case of a person complaining (excepting auto-payouts) for them to make statements like "the bank didn't give me a choice" when it was an online sale with no bank staff present to "sell" it. It could seriously harm the case in terms of complainer credibility if they make accusations that are either baseless or cannot be substantiated with evidence, especially if the bank produces further evidence that shows the statements to be wrong.
Clearly they sent the wrong stuff to the OP, if he refers the complain onwards on the basis the bank has to prove innocence, and they produce evidence that shows he ticked a box during an online only sale, the FOS will simply reject0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards