Tweet
Hi all,
got a claim in with FoS re RBS PPI
The PPI covers an area from 1997 - 2006
It seems like the claim is a little closer to the ombudsman (turned down by adjudicator, so I appealed)
The have mentioned the fact its not covered by ICOBS due to the date, so does anyone know if RBS would have been GISC registered in 1997?
The original adjudication turned it down stating
"You took the PPI following a postal application which RBS sent to you. You completed the application without any help from RBS and it was therefore incumbent upon you to satisfy yourself that the PPI policy met your requirements before taking it. I accept the application “recommends” the PPI, but this is not the same as direct personalised advice and RBS were not obliged to inform you of alternative polices that might be available on the open market from other providers.
·As stated in my letter of 22 October 2010, I do accept that RBS may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if they had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because you were not entitled to any paid sick leave from your employer nor did you have any other polices in place. The PPI policy would have paid 10% of your outstanding balance in the event of accident, sickness or unemployment. I think that this is a reasonable level of cover for someone who had no existing provisions to protect him in one of those events. I remain of the view that you would still have purchased the policy even if RBS had explained the ongoing cost of the policy and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums.
·Having taken out the PPI policy, you would have been sent policy documentation. I note that you have stated that you did not receive this, however, RBS would also have sent you statements for any monthly period in which there were any transactions on your account, or a balance bought forward. These would have shown your PPI premiums being charged to your account. I cannot say whether it was a failing of RBS that you did not receive a policy document. As you were receiving details of PPI premiums being paid, I consider that it was your responsibility to ensure that you had the policy document, if you did not receive it and to query it RBS."
In laymans terms, this seems to say they are trying to say the burden was upon me to ensure RBS gave me the correct information to make an informed choice!
I responded stating at the time I was what would be considered to be "an unsophisticated borrower" without knowledge of credit agreements, GISC rules, possibility of buying the policy elsewhere, etc
So in my view, the duty to ensure everything was provided and I was making an informed choice was on RBS with its significant human, legal and financial resources that I did not have
Another sticking point appears to be tjhe application - it was postal, with a tick box for the PPI, beside which RBS stated "We strongly recommend you take out this cover"
FoS adjudicator stted this does not carry the same consequences as a face to face recommendation, which I completely disagree with, back then I was gullible enough to take RBS at their word (this was the last an only PPI I took)
Would like to hear peoples thoughts on the above?
NcF
got a claim in with FoS re RBS PPI
The PPI covers an area from 1997 - 2006
It seems like the claim is a little closer to the ombudsman (turned down by adjudicator, so I appealed)
The have mentioned the fact its not covered by ICOBS due to the date, so does anyone know if RBS would have been GISC registered in 1997?
The original adjudication turned it down stating
"You took the PPI following a postal application which RBS sent to you. You completed the application without any help from RBS and it was therefore incumbent upon you to satisfy yourself that the PPI policy met your requirements before taking it. I accept the application “recommends” the PPI, but this is not the same as direct personalised advice and RBS were not obliged to inform you of alternative polices that might be available on the open market from other providers.
·As stated in my letter of 22 October 2010, I do accept that RBS may not have adequately explained the ongoing cost of the policy and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums. However, even if they had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because you were not entitled to any paid sick leave from your employer nor did you have any other polices in place. The PPI policy would have paid 10% of your outstanding balance in the event of accident, sickness or unemployment. I think that this is a reasonable level of cover for someone who had no existing provisions to protect him in one of those events. I remain of the view that you would still have purchased the policy even if RBS had explained the ongoing cost of the policy and potential monthly benefit that would be paid in return for your premiums.
·Having taken out the PPI policy, you would have been sent policy documentation. I note that you have stated that you did not receive this, however, RBS would also have sent you statements for any monthly period in which there were any transactions on your account, or a balance bought forward. These would have shown your PPI premiums being charged to your account. I cannot say whether it was a failing of RBS that you did not receive a policy document. As you were receiving details of PPI premiums being paid, I consider that it was your responsibility to ensure that you had the policy document, if you did not receive it and to query it RBS."
In laymans terms, this seems to say they are trying to say the burden was upon me to ensure RBS gave me the correct information to make an informed choice!
I responded stating at the time I was what would be considered to be "an unsophisticated borrower" without knowledge of credit agreements, GISC rules, possibility of buying the policy elsewhere, etc
So in my view, the duty to ensure everything was provided and I was making an informed choice was on RBS with its significant human, legal and financial resources that I did not have
Another sticking point appears to be tjhe application - it was postal, with a tick box for the PPI, beside which RBS stated "We strongly recommend you take out this cover"
FoS adjudicator stted this does not carry the same consequences as a face to face recommendation, which I completely disagree with, back then I was gullible enough to take RBS at their word (this was the last an only PPI I took)
Would like to hear peoples thoughts on the above?
NcF
Comment