Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • betty77
    • By betty77 15th May 18, 2:29 PM
    • 28Posts
    • 14Thanks
    betty77
    PPI added to C/C after signing PPI Claim or Fraud?
    • #1
    • 15th May 18, 2:29 PM
    PPI added to C/C after signing PPI Claim or Fraud? 15th May 18 at 2:29 PM
    A few years ago while going through some papers my partner found the original paper work for when he took out a Halifax credit card. This application showed that he had not ticked the box for PPI and he recalls that he refused it. However it turned out that he was actually paying for PPI on this credit card so it seems that someone had added the PPI to his claim after he had signed his application.

    He did fill out some paperwork and sent it off to Halifax and his claim was rejected we then sent to to the Financial Obudsman and they said that what had happened was Fraud (on the part of the bank) and not mis-selling so he wasn't entitled to claim for the PPI.

    This would have been 2013 or so and he kind of forgot about it but now that the deadline is looming we are looking at it again and thinking that he must be due some compensation either for mis-sold PPI or the Fraud?

    I have seen on several websites that the bank adding PPI after an agreement was signed does count as mis-selling.

    We still have all the paperwork and the original form so is it worth applying again through Resolver or to Halifax directly or should we try something different?
Page 1
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #2
    • 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • #2
    • 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    so it seems that someone had added the PPI to his claim after he had signed his application.
    Quite normal. The majority of PPI cases on credit cards were added post sale. Typically over the phone on the card activation period.

    He did fill out some paperwork and sent it off to Halifax and his claim was rejected we then sent to to the Financial Obudsman and they said that what had happened was Fraud (on the part of the bank) and not mis-selling so he wasn't entitled to claim for the PPI.
    That is a very strange response from the FOS and doesnt fit their normal response for that scenario.

    This would have been 2013 or so and he kind of forgot about it but now that the deadline is looming we are looking at it again and thinking that he must be due some compensation either for mis-sold PPI or the Fraud?
    His complaint was rejected by firm and FOS years ago. The deadline for your partner ended after the FOS rejected the complaint (which, if you wanted, had a referral period from an adjudicator to an ombudsman which has long gone).

    The looming deadline is for those that have yet to raise a complaint. Nothing to do with those that already did.

    I have seen on several websites that the bank adding PPI after an agreement was signed does count as mis-selling.
    No it doesnt. Or rather it is more nuanced than that. Loan PPI must be stated on the agreement if the PPI is bundled within the debt. So, if the agreement didnt include PPI then that would be misselling. However, regular standalone PPI or credit card PPI can be added/removed/changed at a later date without any new agreement being completed as they were not required to be shown on the agreement to begin with.

    so is it worth applying again through Resolver or to Halifax directly or should we try something different?
    Halifax are not required to accept a new complaint from you. You are allowed one attempt and you had it. The usuaul outcome here for those that try is that they are referred back to the original decision unless there is new information that could change the outcome.

    However, your partner can now put in a Plevin complaint and expect money back from that as Halifax credit card PPI does exceed the tipping point for commission.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #3
    • 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    • #3
    • 15th May 18, 3:09 PM
    The bank will not have committed fraud, they will have sold the PPI package over the phone after the event. I'd be surprised if the FOS put in writing that it was fraud and it's also surprising if you complained about it being added after and they didn't look at that complaint given that would be a massive miss-sale reason.

    If the bank rejected it and you went to the FOS and didn't go any further then your complaint is over as it's time barred. You can't open a new complaint as the old one is closed.

    Question would be why he paid it for X number of years if he didn't want it but it appeared on every statement as a charge?
    • betty77
    • By betty77 15th May 18, 3:33 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    betty77
    • #4
    • 15th May 18, 3:33 PM
    • #4
    • 15th May 18, 3:33 PM
    He was young and it was his first credit card it was only when the whole PPI thing came out that he went back over the paperwork.

    He never consented to the PPI being on the account. I will need to look again at the letter from the FOS to see exactly what they wrote.

    I will also have him submit a Plevin complaint.

    I am still not very happy with the result of his inital PPI complaint and will look into this further.
    • McKneff
    • By McKneff 15th May 18, 3:49 PM
    • 36,142 Posts
    • 46,596 Thanks
    McKneff
    • #5
    • 15th May 18, 3:49 PM
    • #5
    • 15th May 18, 3:49 PM
    But he did consent to it. He signed, accepting it and as said above, it would be marked as ppi on a seperate line on every single monthly statement.
    He had the opportunity to cancel it at any time
    make the most of it, we are only here for the weekend.
    and we will never, ever return.
    • betty77
    • By betty77 15th May 18, 4:11 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    betty77
    • #6
    • 15th May 18, 4:11 PM
    • #6
    • 15th May 18, 4:11 PM
    No he didn't sign to accept it, on his copy of the original agreement which was a carbon copy of what was sold to him it showed that when he signed his agreement he had not ticked or accepted the PPI. Someone at the bank or sales person added this in retrospect after he signed. He didn't consent at all.

    Later when it appeared he assumed it was just part of the agreement and that he had to have it. He no longer uses that card after the ppi information came to light.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 15th May 18, 5:34 PM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #7
    • 15th May 18, 5:34 PM
    • #7
    • 15th May 18, 5:34 PM
    No he didn't sign to accept it, on his copy of the original agreement which was a carbon copy of what was sold to him it showed that when he signed his agreement he had not ticked or accepted the PPI. Someone at the bank or sales person added this in retrospect after he signed. He didn't consent at all.

    Later when it appeared he assumed it was just part of the agreement and that he had to have it. He no longer uses that card after the ppi information came to light.
    Originally posted by betty77
    As above, most credit card PPI was added after the sale in a phone call. The lack of tick on the box on the form doesn't prove (or disprove) anything. If they rang up and sold it he'd have got paperwork in the post.

    Get it out of your head this was fraud, if banks just added stuff like this to accounts they'd get caught in a matter of weeks as plenty of people would query this charge on every statement. He will have been sold it on the phone and simply forgot.

    Unfortunately the time frames are against you, you complained, were rejected, went to FOS who rejected it and then you had 6 months to ask the Ombudsman to look at it and after that the case is considered closed and time barred.
    • betty77
    • By betty77 15th May 18, 6:13 PM
    • 28 Posts
    • 14 Thanks
    betty77
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 6:13 PM
    • #8
    • 15th May 18, 6:13 PM
    The letter from the FOS is where is said it was Fraud, we never considered that until they said that was the case so please don't tell me to get it out of my head I have it on the letter in front of me!

    I'm obviously at a dead end with this here so will seek advise elsewhere.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 15th May 18, 10:03 PM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 10:03 PM
    • #9
    • 15th May 18, 10:03 PM
    The letter from the FOS is where is said it was Fraud, we never considered that until they said that was the case so please don't tell me to get it out of my head I have it on the letter in front of me!

    I'm obviously at a dead end with this here so will seek advise elsewhere.
    Originally posted by betty77

    Posting on a forum to be told what you want to hear isn't constructive. The fact is regardless of what the FOS said (and let's be honest, if it was fraud, why did you not report it to the police at the time or when you were told), your case is over. Asking some other group for an answer you want, rather than the correct one, is pointless.


    Please feel free to scan and upload the letter where the FOS specifically state this was fraud by the bank though
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 15th May 18, 11:58 PM
    • 20,993 Posts
    • 11,758 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    The letter from the FOS is where is said it was Fraud, we never considered that until they said that was the case so please don't tell me to get it out of my head I have it on the letter in front of me!
    Originally posted by betty77
    So FOS said categorically that the Bank had committed fraud?

    Why did they not the suggest that you take the Bank to court if it was beyond their remit?

    Fraud is a serious criminal offence, not something that would be "swept under the carpet" by a FOS adjudicator. The police would have been called.

    I suspect what the FOS letter actually said was that what you alleged was fraud, but that you had provided no evidence to persuade them that this was the case.


    I am still not very happy with the result of his inital PPI complaint and will look into this further.
    Originally posted by betty77
    Four years on is a little late for that. I'm afraid.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 16th May 18, 11:33 AM
    • 5,486 Posts
    • 3,383 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    So FOS said categorically that the Bank had committed fraud?

    Why did they not the suggest that you take the Bank to court if it was beyond their remit?

    Fraud is a serious criminal offence, not something that would be "swept under the carpet" by a FOS adjudicator. The police would have been called.

    I suspect what the FOS letter actually said was that what you alleged was fraud, but that you had provided no evidence to persuade them that this was the case.


    Four years on is a little late for that. I'm afraid.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    The more I think about this, the less it makes sense...

    FOS write a letter categorically stating the bank has committed fraud but they don't consider it to be miss-selling?

    FOS don't then get the FCA to prosecute the bank??
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 16th May 18, 12:04 PM
    • 94,556 Posts
    • 62,527 Thanks
    dunstonh
    A fraud would, by default, by a missale. So whilst the FOS couldnt investigate the fraud, they could report it to the FCA and uphold the complaint and inform the bank of their belief that it was fraud for the bank then to investigate. Remember the bank would equally be a victim of fraud here as well if a staff member was committing fraud as they would have to pay out to cover the losses.

    So, it seems extremely unlikely that the FOS would say it was a fraud. It is more likely they would say that what the person is saying is an allegation of fraud and its not their place to deal with that.

    And as the FOS themselves have said in complaint responses, the adding of PPI after the application is very common and normal, its unlikely they would consider it a fraud. Indeed, FOS responses where there is little or no audit trail and contradictory information about the same is not referred to as fraud. Incomplete records does not mean fraud. It means incomplete records. They would review the complaint on the available information supplied by both sides and make a decision in the normal way.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,945Posts Today

8,602Users online

Martin's Twitter