Tweet
I have received a standard response to my claim for PPI refund from capital one that I selected the option on the internet application etc. Attachment below.
I have drafted a response as below and would like any further advise if there is any further to add?
In response to my letter of complaint concerning the above account, your letter of 31/05/12 explained that you were unable to find evidence of mis-selling, and that you were therefore unable to refund the PPI premiums applied because I had apparently ticked the PPI box.
It is my belief that my complaint has not been dealt with properly and fairly under the FSA rules as provided in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 - some of which I have attached to this letter. I respectfully but firmly request that you review your earlier decision not to uphold my complaint, and that you now do so in compliance with the FSA rules. I appreciate your time and attention to the task of investigating my claim, but your rejection of my complaint appears to be based solely on your own apparent inability to find any evidence to support my complaint. This is hardly surprising, as I doubt if such evidence would now exist in your records, and if it did, I doubt that you have any incentive to look for it.
The evidence that you seem to have ignored in your investigation is the generally accepted view that any PPI product sold in recent years is likely to have been mis-sold for a wide range of reasons - a fact borne out by the very need for PS 10/12 to be drawn up by the FSA in 2010. You have clearly made a very good effort at finding as much documentary evidence as you can to refute my claim, but as DISP. APP. 3 makes clear, most – if not all – of that evidence cannot be relied upon.
Despite the evidence you have produced and the assertion that I ticked a ‘Yes’ box after having been presented with copious amounts of ‘small print’ is not deemed by the FSA as sufficient evidence to show that mis-selling did not take place. The fact remains that neither my options nor the ‘small print’ terms were explained to me clearly, and that I was effectively misled in the sale of this PPI. It is generally accepted that this is the most likely probability, and the onus is upon you to produce clear evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Despite what I am sure are your commendable efforts, you have failed to do this, as that evidence is conspicuous by its very absence in your correspondence.
I therefore now invite you to review your decision, in the hope that you will be able and willing to do so within fourteen days. If the complaint cannot then be resolved satisfactorily, I will refer it to the FOS which I hope will not be necessary - bearing in mind the considerable cost of doing so, and the time and effort involved. Please also be advised that a copy of this letter has also been sent to the CEO, Mr Richard Fairbank"
I have drafted a response as below and would like any further advise if there is any further to add?
In response to my letter of complaint concerning the above account, your letter of 31/05/12 explained that you were unable to find evidence of mis-selling, and that you were therefore unable to refund the PPI premiums applied because I had apparently ticked the PPI box.
It is my belief that my complaint has not been dealt with properly and fairly under the FSA rules as provided in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 - some of which I have attached to this letter. I respectfully but firmly request that you review your earlier decision not to uphold my complaint, and that you now do so in compliance with the FSA rules. I appreciate your time and attention to the task of investigating my claim, but your rejection of my complaint appears to be based solely on your own apparent inability to find any evidence to support my complaint. This is hardly surprising, as I doubt if such evidence would now exist in your records, and if it did, I doubt that you have any incentive to look for it.
The evidence that you seem to have ignored in your investigation is the generally accepted view that any PPI product sold in recent years is likely to have been mis-sold for a wide range of reasons - a fact borne out by the very need for PS 10/12 to be drawn up by the FSA in 2010. You have clearly made a very good effort at finding as much documentary evidence as you can to refute my claim, but as DISP. APP. 3 makes clear, most – if not all – of that evidence cannot be relied upon.
Despite the evidence you have produced and the assertion that I ticked a ‘Yes’ box after having been presented with copious amounts of ‘small print’ is not deemed by the FSA as sufficient evidence to show that mis-selling did not take place. The fact remains that neither my options nor the ‘small print’ terms were explained to me clearly, and that I was effectively misled in the sale of this PPI. It is generally accepted that this is the most likely probability, and the onus is upon you to produce clear evidence to demonstrate otherwise. Despite what I am sure are your commendable efforts, you have failed to do this, as that evidence is conspicuous by its very absence in your correspondence.
I therefore now invite you to review your decision, in the hope that you will be able and willing to do so within fourteen days. If the complaint cannot then be resolved satisfactorily, I will refer it to the FOS which I hope will not be necessary - bearing in mind the considerable cost of doing so, and the time and effort involved. Please also be advised that a copy of this letter has also been sent to the CEO, Mr Richard Fairbank"
Comment