MBNA PPI

[helen23carter76]

Hi,

I am after some advice.

I complained to MBNA about PPI being added to my Virgin Credit Card since March 2005 and have today received a letter saying that i as i applied for the credit card online i opted into taking out PPI.

I have written off to FOS today so say that i believe that the PPI was mis-sold to me as i don't recall opting in for PPI and that the box must have been pre-ticked. Therefore requiring me to opt out.

MBNA have attached a copy of my application form which does show yes next to the PPI box.

I just wanted some help and advice from anyone who has received a similar letter from MBNA.

Many thanks

Helen

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI

Hi and welcome to you, Helen. It appears that your reasons for considering the PPI as mis-sold are that it was not made clear to you that:
1. PPI was automatically included as a part of the application process, and
2. You had the option to reject the PPI, without it affecting your loan application in any other way.

You may find there are other reasons which you consider apply from the list in this thread:
PPI Preliminary Letter - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

Although it appears that you have now referred this to the FOS, as they have not yet commenced investigating your claim, then I think you can still deal with MBNA - even if they have told you they have issued their final response.

It may be worth telling them that you will be referring the matter to FOS, but offer them one last chance to save themselves the cost of FOS referral before doing so. You could perhaps let them know that you are taking the matter seriously by quoting from the FSA Handbook on PPI Dispute Resolution in Policy Statement PS 10/12:-

DISP APP 3.3.2 The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.

DISP APP 3.3.5 The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.

DISP APP 3.3.9 In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales
scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).

They may then decide that you are not going to fold easily on this, and that it may be best to settle and have done with it. It MIGHT just work...!!!

[helen23carter76]

Re: MBNA PPI

Many thanks for your advice. I will draft another letter to MBNA tonight.

Do you think it is worth holding onto my complaint to the FOS for another few weeks or get this out straight away?

Many thanks

[di30]

Re: MBNA PPI

Hi Helen and welcome to Legal Beagles.

I must agree with Bill, and 2nd all he says.

It appears that many online sales was a case of opting out, and not made clear at the time you purchased the policy.

But as Bill says, you may also come across other reasons that may apply to you, which could also strenthern your case.

I take it that was the final decision, and they did not give you the opportunity to forward further information before making the complaint to the FOS?
Where they enclosed the details of the Financial ombudsman service (FOS) by forms of a leaflet?

Otherwise, yes do write to them again and ask them to reconsider with further information you give.
Or give it another go anyway. Good luck.

[helen23carter76]

Re: MBNA PPI

Again, many thanks for your advice.

Yes it was there final response and they gave me contact details for the FOS.

I am desperate to get something from this as it would clear all of my existing debts. I have been paying £50 a month PPI since March 2005. I only cancelled it when i realised it was being added late last year.

Kind regards

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI

Thanks Di. Thinking further along Di's lines, Helen, if this was MBNA's formal final response, and this is the only response you have had, then a further point could perhaps be made to them on the lines of:

I note that the only response you have given is also your final response in the matter, and you therefore have refused to enter into any dialogue concerning my claim. I do not consider this to be reasonable conduct, and I will bring this to the attention of the FOS if necessary. You will no doubt be aware that this may then entail a compensatory award, thus further increasing the cost of settling this claim.

If you haven't actually sent your claim to the FOS, then I would personally suggest that you hold back on that for now. What MBNA now do in response to your earnest attempts at settling this matter in the face of their refusal to communicate further could be used in any subsequent FOS claim, I believe. Here's some more stuff from the Handbook to throw at them:

DISP APP 3.2.2 The firm should seek to establish the true substance of the complaint, rather than taking a narrow interpretation of the issues raised, and should not focus solely on the specific expression of the complaint. This is likely to require an approach to complaint handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the complaint.

DISP APP 3.2.7 The firm should consider all of its sales of payment protection contracts to the complainant in respect of re-financed loans that were rolled up into the loan covered by the payment protection contract that is the subject of the complaint. The firm should consider the cumulative financial impact on the complainant of any previous breaches or failings in those sales.


DISP APP 3.3.1 Where a complaint is made, the firm should assess the complaint fairly, giving appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence, including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the firm identifies. The firm is not expected automatically to assume that there has been a breach or failing.

DISP APP 3.3.2 The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.

DISP APP 3.3.3 The firm should recognise that oral evidence may be sufficient evidence and not dismiss evidence from the complainant solely because it is not supported by documentary proof. The firm should take account of a complainant's limited ability fully to articulate his complaint or to explain his actions or decisions made at the time of the sale.

DISP APP 3.3.4 Where the complainant's account of events conflicts with the firm's own records or leaves doubt, the firm should assess the reliability of the complainant's account fairly and in good faith. The firm should make all reasonable efforts (including by contact with the complainant where necessary) to clarify ambiguous issues or conflicts of evidence before making any finding against the complainant.

DISP APP 3.3.5 The firm should not reject a complainant's account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.

[helen23carter76]

Re: MBNA PPI

I have drafted a letter to MBNA and included the information above.

The only response rec'd from MBNA is there final response. They have not even entertained the idea of investigating my claim further.

Thanks again for all your help.

It makes me wonder why people are paying firms to claim PPI back when there is such good free advice available here.

[helen23carter76]

Re: MBNA PPI

I have just opened another letter from Virgin/MBNA stating that they are reducing my credit limit to £500 and increasing my SVR, does this seem a coincidence that i get this the same day as my PPI claim is refused? Are they trying to prove a point?

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI

That does seem more than just coincidence, doesn't it ? I take it they didn't give any reason for doing this ?

The FOS doesn't look too kindly on banks/lenders who bully their customers by reducing their facilities or upping their rates if they make a legitimate claim. It might be worth mentioning this in the letter to them as well - it won't stand them in good stead if you do eventually have to call in the FOS.

[stevesouth33]

Re: MBNA PPI

Helen,

Couple of points to note, I had exactly the same situation with MBNA, but in 2005 the PPI was opt in and not out, they issued their response to my complaint as they have done as not upheld.

I went to the FOS and even though it was a non-advised sale I maintained that although I may have opted in the cost was not clear and I was not in a position where the cover was relevant.

FOS upheld the complaint on this basis and MBNA settled on that basis with premiums repaid plus 8% simple interest.

The key thing here is that you may maintain you felt that the marketing suggested that the cover was good value when it was not, that you were unable to understand the costs and your financial situation may or may not have meant the cover was innapropriate.

I don't think having issued a final response they will entertain further dialogue but I did try this with M&S money and they did issue a further response although this did not change the outcome.

I would try MBNA again but your basis is probably better explained around cost and situation rather than opt in\out.

The FOS result varies sadly depending on the adjudicator but is worth trying. MBNA will argue that the premiums were transparent on your statements and you could have cancelled at any time but that does not sway the argument.

Best of luck

Steve

[helen23carter76]

Re: MBNA PPI

Thank you Steve. I will remeber your advice when i forward my complaint to the FOS.

Can i ask what you said to the FOS regarding why the PPI was not relevant? I had guranteed sick pay from work for a few months as well as accident cover through my pension. I have never taken out PPI before as i have never felt it appropriate.

The letter regarding my credit limit reduction and SVR increase said that they came to this decision after consulting with credit reference agencies. I think it is related to my complaint. My credit limit was £6,500 and now they have reduced it to £500 which seems a dramatic cut.

I am bewildered with it all. I just think it seems so unfair!
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
One more point Steve, when was your FOS decision?

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI

The letter regarding my credit limit reduction and SVR increase said that they came to this decision after consulting with credit reference agencies. I think it is related to my complaint. My credit limit was £6,500 and now they have reduced it to £500 which seems a dramatic cut.

It may well be that this is something we are going to find them trying more often, as this thread by Shamen also appeared today:

heads up: barclaycard a bit underhand here - Legal Beagles Consumer Forum

[stevesouth33]

Re: MBNA PPI

Helen,

The adjudicator negotiated with MBNA which resulted in them settling based on my argument around suitability and the cost element, it was upheld on that basis and MBNA settled in October based on the agreement being reached in September.

They settled at a value of just over 5k based on an outstanding balance of around 6k over 5 years.

They paid by cheque and did not reconstruct the account.

On the reduction of credit limit it might be an idea to use one of the credit ref agencies to see what could have drawn them to that conclusion. Incidentally do you have a balance in excess of the reduced credit limit?

Steve