MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

[Angry Cat]

Last weekend, I came across an interesting letter in The Sunday Times; Question of Money
"Refund ticks the right box"

LO writes:
I asked MBNA about compensation for payment protection insurance for a credit card I took out in 2003. Two months later MBNA rejected my claim because it said I had requested the PPI by ticking a box on the application form.
I was sure I had not ticked the box and asked for a copy of the form. This showed that the PPI box was ticked but I maintain that I did not do it. At the time I worked with local government where employment was generally secure with good sick pay. I believed I did not need PPI.

MBNA took a clear cut line:
the box was ticked so the PPI was not mis-sold. This is not good enough. Even if a handwriting expert believed that you had indeed ticked the box, MBNA cannot use that alone as a reason to turn down your claim for a refund.
It should investigate the whole selling process. MBNA told you that it had not advised you to buy the policy...you chose to do so yourself.
On the application form, in a larger typeface than the bulk of the form, it said: "We strongly recommend payment protection cover" This is clearly an encouragement to buy. Even so, you are certain you did not tick the box.

I showed MBNA the details you had supplied to me and it said these included more information than you had sent it.
For example, it did not know about your sick pay arrangements etc.

There is a useful message here. Whenever you make a claim, whatever it is for, make sure you provide every little detail!

With the extra information it now has, MBNA has upheld your complaint and is refunding you £832.
NOT FORGETTING THE TIMES GETTING INVOLVED, OF COURSE...:beagle:

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

Good spot, AC. All the major lenders seem to have adopted much the same attitude, and fail to adhere to the FSA/FCA PPI Redress rules. Here are some that I think are relevant. DISP APP 3.3.4 & 3.3.5 in this particular case.

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 3.2.3 A firm may need to contact a complainant directly to understand fully the issues raised, even where the firm received the complaint from a third party acting on the complainant's behalf. The firm should not use this contact to delay the assessment 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).

[Angry Cat]

Re: MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

Good spot, AC. All the major lenders seem to have adopted much the same attitude, and fail to adhere to the FSA/FCA PPI Redress rules. Here are some that I think are relevant. DISP APP 3.3.4 & 3.3.5 in this particular case.

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 3.2.3 A firm may need to contact a complainant directly to understand fully the issues raised, even where the firm received the complaint from a third party acting on the complainant's behalf. The firm should not use this contact to delay the assessment 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).

Quite so, Bill!

And I have not seen a torn off slip or form/application form from MBNA, that did not state:
"WE STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT YOU YOU TAKE OUT THIS COVER"


And, who could forget this...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8282264.stm

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

Yep - Mr Bradford & Mr Bingley were saying this as far back as April 1997:-

"...we believe that Payment Protection Insurance is now vital for anyone arranging a new mrtgage. In fact Bradford & Bingley considers this to be so important that we will pay the first 6 months premiums of this cover for you."

[Angry Cat]

Re: MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

Yep - Mr Bradford & Mr Bingley were saying this as far back as April 1997:-

"...we believe that Payment Protection Insurance is now vital for anyone arranging a new mrtgage. In fact Bradford & Bingley considers this to be so important that we will pay the first 6 months premiums of this cover for you."

You couldn't make it up...!
Wonder how Banco Santander will deal with that clanger?

[Bill-K]

Re: MBNA PPI in the papers, again!

Unfortunately, the mortgage book was retained by B&B plc when the rest of B&B was swallowed by Abbey/Santander. The person I am helping with that PPI claim has been turned down by B&B, and I may well have to use that clanger with the FOS later.