FSCS PPI claim rejected

[charmmy kitty]

I've just had my claim rejected by the FSCS and was hoping for some advice. I've had ppi money repaid on other loans, which I didnt think were mis-sold but this 1 I feel is a genuine case of mis-selling!!

We were told welcome would not approve the loan unless we took the PPI policy, I had explained I didnt want it due to previous health conditions and getting full sick pay from work. We took the loan which was for a car for work transportation. The FSCS say they believe the product was not mis-sold as the t&c's said the policy was optional and they take written evidence over verbal. Surely this is mis-selling. I'm no expert by any means but this is my understanding of mis-selling.

I've asked for a copy of the t&c's as the paperwork I have does not mention this. Also the agreement I signed was a photocopy with the ppi box already ticked, there was no way to sign for the loan without taking the ppi! Just hoping I can make some kind of appeal but I know this is the final stage so I want to make sure I put the best case forward

Thanks in advance!

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Hi CK, and welcome to you. Written evidence is always preferable to verbal, so anything you have which supports your claim is vital. If you still have your original agreement, showing that the PPI box had been pre-ticked, then that would be good - as it implies that you weren't given the option when you signed the agreement. Comparing their copy of the T&C's to yours could be good, too. If you can come up with evidence of a pre-existing illness and/or full sick pay arrangements, that would be good - but proof that you told them about this would be excellent if you have it.

I'm not sure if the FSCS is subject to the FSA guidelines here or not. There may have been older regulations regarding mis-selling, which they would have to apply when looking at the actual sale itself. BUT - when deciding what evidence to accept, and what weight to give it - then I think they should be using whatever guidelines are NOW in force. If the FSA guidelines apply, then there are a number of them which may well work in your favour.

Hopefully, someone might be able to say for sure if the FSCS is subject to FSA guidelines - possibly Di30.

[charmmy kitty]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Excellent Bill, thanks so much for some pointers. I'll try doing some research on the FOS guidlines to see if they apply. Much appreciated

[di30]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

I've just had my claim rejected by the FSCS and was hoping for some advice. I've had ppi money repaid on other loans, which I didnt think were mis-sold but this 1 I feel is a genuine case of mis-selling!!

We were told welcome would not approve the loan unless we took the PPI policy, I had explained I didnt want it due to previous health conditions and getting full sick pay from work. We took the loan which was for a car for work transportation. The FSCS say they believe the product was not mis-sold as the t&c's said the policy was optional and they take written evidence over verbal. Surely this is mis-selling. I'm no expert by any means but this is my understanding of mis-selling.

I've asked for a copy of the t&c's as the paperwork I have does not mention this. Also the agreement I signed was a photocopy with the ppi box already ticked, there was no way to sign for the loan without taking the ppi! Just hoping I can make some kind of appeal but I know this is the final stage so I want to make sure I put the best case forward

Thanks in advance!

I don't understand on why he FSCS have rejected your complaint, the T&C's would be the same for all customers and still optional, yet they accepted the complaint. They need to take into account you personal reasons/circumstances on why you believe it was mis sold, despite what the T&C's says.
The fact that you had pre med conditions, is to what I know of a reason they will consider.

Was this loan front loaded?
For this reason they do take into account.
These costly policies are frowned upon, for example, if your loan was say for 15 years, the ppi covered just 5 of those years, the cover would end in 5 years, yet you would still be paying for the ppi for the life of the loan uncovered?
They do take into account this matter if this applies to you, and if you maybe missed making them aware of this.

I will look into it a little more, to see if there is a way this can go further and get back to you.

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

I'll try doing some research on the FOS guidlines to see if they apply.

OK., good. I have a shortlist of the relevant guidelines, but I didn't want to raise your hopes, so I haven't posted it.

FYI, the guidelines are contained in the FSA's Policy Statement PS 10/12. Within this is the "PPI Redress Handbook" - and these are the guidelines that the FOS uses. If we can nail these to the FSCS, it would be good.

[di30]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

I have not read through this thoroughly as yet, but check it out just in case.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/doing/re...s_guidance.pdf

Drat think this is the incorrect info, don't know what happened there, clicked on the wrong link it seems.

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

It's looking hopeful, I haven't read it through, but this link suggests the FSCS should follow FSA guidelines:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/other_...s/coordination

EDIT: Just checked Di's link, and that just about confirms the FSCS is subject to FSA rules - well done, Di !!!

[di30]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

It's looking hopeful, I haven't read it through, but this link suggests the FSCS should follow FSA guidelines:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/library/other_...s/coordination

EDIT: Just checked Di's link, and that just about confirms the FSCS is subject to FSA rules - well done, Di !!!

Oh right, so it is correct then lol, cheers Bill, that's good lol.

[charmmy kitty]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Wow, what a great response. Thanks so much. I'll get reading through these guidlines tonight and get back onto the fscs tomorrow. What a great site, so glad I found it.

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

It worked for me, Di - I thought you had been back and fixed it !!!

Here's a couple of links from the FSCS site:

http://www.fscs.org.uk/industry/fsa-...10-d-jw7qbpys/

This one seems to clinch it, though, it's their own T&C's, and they state:

5.2 The definitive version of an FSCS publication is the original printed one. The definitive version of our Compensation Rules text at any particular time is that which is published as part of the FSA Handbook of rules and guidance, under Redress, Compensation.

http://www.fscs.org.uk/terms-and-conditions/

So....here's a letter I have used in a previous claim. Do NOT copy it verbatim, but tailor it to suit your own circumstances. Or simply write your own, and nick whatever bits might be useful. I have listed those FSA guidelines I mentioned earlier. I hope we've been helpful, CK.

" Thank you for your letter of XX/XX/XX, explaining that you have found insufficient evidence to agree with my allegations that the PPI was mis-sold on the loan and credit card accounts. This comes as no surprise to me, as this sale took place over XX years ago, so I doubt that there is very much data available concerning it. I think it would be fairer and more accurate to say that the evidence in support of my claim outweighs any evidence to dispute it.

In my original letter of complaint, I stated that I consider that the PPI was mis-sold for a number of reasons, and the two points which you have taken from the questionnaire are just two of those reasons. I list below further reasons why I consider the PPI to have been mis-sold:-
1. I was led to believe that the insurance was compulsory, and it was not explained to me that the policy was optional.
2. I was pressurised into purchasing the insurance by the generally insistent nature of the seller.
3. I was not asked whether I already had any existing insurance or employer cover/benefits that would cover the repayments in a similar way to this insurance.
4. I was not provided with full information as to what the insurance would and would not cover.
5. It was not explained that there are exclusions within the policy clauses that could seriously affect any potential claim I made on this insurance, so I was unable to make an informed decision as to whether this insurance was suitable or not.
6. I paid in advance for the insurance but it was never explained that there were other methods of payment available.
7. It was not explained that the insurance cover would not run for the full term of the loan, even though the repayment of insurance premiums would continue for the full term of the loan.
8. It was not explained that, by adding the insurance premium to the loan amount, it would continue to accrue interest over the full term of the loan.
9. It was certainly not in my interest to purchase this particular policy.
10. It is generally accepted that PPI has been widely mis-sold by lenders over the years. So much so, that in August 2010 the FSA produced Policy Statement PS 10/12 entitled “The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance complaints.” Contained within this is the Dispute Resolution Handbook specifically dealing with the handling of complaints about mis-sold PPI. Therefore, where a complaint of mis-selling of PPI is made, then unless the lender can show otherwise, the balance of probability is that the PPI was mis-sold.

I do not consider that my complaint has been assessed in accordance with the FSA’s Dispute Resolution rules, and I request that you now urgently look again at my complaint with particular reference to the following rules from PS 10/12:-
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 3.3.1 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.
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).
DISP APP 3.7.2 Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract.
DISP APP 3.9.4 The firm should make any offer of redress to the complainant in a fair and balanced way. In particular, the firm should explain clearly to the complainant the basis for the redress offered including how any compensation is calculated and, where relevant, the rescheduling of the loan, and the consequences of accepting the offer of redress.

I do hope you will see from this that I am serious about this complaint, and I trust you will deal with it properly and fairly. I am sure you will not need reminding that the FSA will take into account your conduct in dealing with my complaint, should I be forced to refer this to them - and I hope we can avoid the time and expense of having to do so.
I look forward to your timeous response. Thank you in anticipation. "

[pressandgo]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Cracking letter - might be useful in the future so subbing

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Cheers P&G. It's a bit 'over-kill,' really, but I'd had a coupla beers !!! I just thought it might be useful for nicking bits from to build a foundation, perhaps.

In a more lucid state, I would recommend restraint at the outset, and a gentle paying out of the rope....

[charmmy kitty]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Very true Bill. I'm drafting my letter just now. I'm still waiting on the copy of t&c's from FSCS.

Can't thank you enough. I'll be making a donation to the site

[Bill-K]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

The FSCS T&C's are in the second link in my post #10 above. I have copied them into a Word.doc which you can print, if that's any help. It's attached at the bottom of this post.

It's good of you to pledge a donation, CK - that gives us even more incentive to get you a win !!!
If you can give a Beagle puppy a home, that would be nice, too !!! :beagle2222:

[charmmy kitty]

Re: FSCS PPI claim rejected

Happy New Year guys. You would not believe the response I got from fscs. I'll be scanning their response and uploading it. Its been once again rejected and I've been told the next course of action would be a judicial review. Obviously this is not an option (the claim is worth less than 1000). When I speak to them they say send in any further evidence but I honestly don't trust them at all. I sent the original credit agreement to them to show the signature page had been pre-copied with the ppi box already ticked. They are disputing this is genuine and say even if it is, it doesnt prove anything! They won't take verbal evidence. I've put in a subject access request and when I receive that, will try to make a case to the FSA I suppose. You guys have done so much already. Any further help would be appreciated.