Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

My darling L'pool,
Thank you! I am so delighted to be back.
Missed you a lot.
Your date is in September. I hope you'll show them, my friend.
I would like to come personally to support you
I do not know if it is possible or allowed.
But if so, I would!
very best of luck and please do keep me posted, my dear.
lol
Xxxxxx

[di30]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Welcome back my friend "Victoria"

We have all missed you, but knew you would be back!! LOL!!!! Xxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Thank you, my friend!
delighted to be back!
Look forward to helping in any way I can!
lol
Xxx

[Angellar]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Hi there

Di directed me to this page as I am having issues with Santander (thank you Di)

I raised 2 claims for the misselling of ppi with them and they have rejected this based on the below reasons;

i signed the box for ppi ( they have only just sent me the copies of agreements and this clearly shows on one as having a cross next to it indicating that I needed to sign it)

i did did not exercise my right to cancel the policy and they apparently sent me a letter advising that I could cancel giving 30 days notice


that there company has neer had a policy to say that the ppi was mandatory

the letter is a standard rejection letter, I have emailed the exec complaints team several times asking for a review threatening the press etc but they can not give me a timescale for when this will be reviewed.


Does anyine tone hae any advice as I am loathe to give up as they didn't tell me that this policy was optional and they didn't tell me what this was?

The he agreements were both signed in 2004 around the time that they were investigated as GE money for misselling and knowing that thy were.

I did did make a mistake and say that the wrong one was ticked my the sales lady, I meant the one with the cross which is different to the one I complained about.

I would really appreciate so guidance on this

thanks

ange

[di30]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Hi there

Di directed me to this page as I am having issues with Santander (thank you Di)

I raised 2 claims for the misselling of ppi with them and they have rejected this based on the below reasons;

i signed the box for ppi ( they have only just sent me the copies of agreements and this clearly shows on one as having a cross next to it indicating that I needed to sign it)

i did did not exercise my right to cancel the policy and they apparently sent me a letter advising that I could cancel giving 30 days notice


that there company has neer had a policy to say that the ppi was mandatory

the letter is a standard rejection letter, I have emailed the exec complaints team several times asking for a review threatening the press etc but they can not give me a timescale for when this will be reviewed.


Does anyine tone hae any advice as I am loathe to give up as they didn't tell me that this policy was optional and they didn't tell me what this was?

The he agreements were both signed in 2004 around the time that they were investigated as GE money for misselling and knowing that thy were.

I did did make a mistake and say that the wrong one was ticked my the sales lady, I meant the one with the cross which is different to the one I complained about.

I would really appreciate so guidance on this

thanks

ange

Hiya Angel and your more than welcome. :tinysmile_twink_t2:

I am sure our Victoria will be along soon, meanwhile take some useful tips from her template letter which may help, as rulings apply X

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Hello, Angel and welcome.

I will post some thoughts and ideas for you this weekend (now it is about 3am, I would do a better job later in the day or tomorrow. Definitely this weekend).

I read your other thread as well.

In short, what you came across is typical for Santander.

in my experience they were the worst and I had that nightmare for 4 months.
sometimes I could not believe that such behavior was even possible.
they sent me 3 letters of rejection, last one written by the head of their complaint department.
However eventually I won and they had to uphold and even pay extra for handling my complaint so bad.

I am glad that you are prepared to continue.

The reasons for their rejections are indeed in breach of the FCA guidelines.

I know this template rejection letter by heart, I have a collection of them.

it would be the best, if you could show that this insurance was useless for you and you would not likely be able to make a successful claim.

If CEO route does not work, Di is the best to advise about the underwriter route.

Still let's try CEO first.

I'll return within next 2 days and write in detail.

Thank you.

I'll be in touch very soon.

best,

Victoria

[Angellar]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Thanks you for the support!

I have seen some of your letters and advice and I'm glad to be on the same side as both of you! Lol

i really appreciate it

ange x

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Hello again, Angel,

It would be helpful, if possible, if you post your rejection letter from Santander, of course, removing all the personal information.

we'll try to see all their weak spots

so far, as you correctly stated, the fact that you signed the relevant agreement and the fact that you did not cancel it, are not the reasons for rejection.

let's have a look what else they said and we will try to challenge it point by point.

It would be good to show that this PPI would have been of no use to you, it makes case much stronger if you can show that it is unlikely that you could have made a successful claim under that policy.

You already wrote to CEO about you not cancelling the policy, which cannot be the reason for rejection.

that is correct as it is stated in the FCA guidelines, which apply to both advised and non advised sales before and after 2005.

"App 3.3.5
App 3.3.6
Appendix 3 Handling Payment Protection Insurance complaints


The approach to considering evidence:

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.

The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy."

Referreing to the guidelines appeared to be very helpful.
when I did it for the first time, businesses were not used to it, not expecting us to be so well informed, so it was a bit of a shock for them.
however I believe banks now are getting used to it and try to find some ways around that.
they become "immuned" to that sort of defence.

so we have to be prepared.

as good as they are, the FCA guidelines would work better if they can be combined with the fact that that policy would not have worked for you.

What is very important is to write your challenging letter very clear, breaking it to the points, making the structure very easy and talk only about the things you can prove.

For instance, you made a very good point about GE bank being investigated for mis-sales, however, as absurd as it is, when our genius L'pool used this defence, she got an answer, where they stated, I quote L'pool' post:

"I got a rejection today. Apparently, even though they were fined in 2007 for business done in 2005, all business done before that date was fine!!!!!!!!!!!"

So, as infuriating as it is, unfortunately it is not possible to prove that this fine was related to mis-sales before 2005, though, of course, common sense (which is not common anymore! ) tells us a different story.
We have to learn from each other experience, that is how we help each other on this fabulous forum, LB, so, learning from L'pool experience, I would not bring anything in our case, unless it can be proved.

still we can refer to the facts, not suppositions, and the facts are that
untrained people were selling those products to us. This is the fact.
the breach of the FCA guidelines is the fact.

if you can show that the policy was useless for you, it would be the fact.

I am sure we can find enough of facts to prepare a good case for you.

I suggest our next steps, if possible, should be:

1. For you to post or to describe in detail all the reasons for their rejection,
2. To prepare the grounds to prove without a shadow of doubt that unless being misled, you would NOT have taken this policy.

I put links here to some useful documents from the Ombudsman and FCA.

I think case 71 from the Ombudsman documents addresses the point about "x", which indicates that you have to sign.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...omplaints.html

Also the link to the FCA Handbook is
http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/DISP/App/3

In my case, when I was emailing to the CEO, I copied it in the same email to my MP and even to Which Legal.

I think involving MP is a good idea. Your local MP can write on your behalf and also, if agrees that you were not treated fairly, has the power even to approach the relevant minister.
The CEO department saw that all my communication to them was copied to my MP. I think it did not hurt.

This is a starting point for us.

Meanwhile, if you want to, please have a look at my letter which I posted on that thread (on page 5) and see if anything could be of any use to you.


thank you.

Once I have a little bit more information about their reasons for rejection to find their weak spots and about your personal circumstances to support the point that you did not need this insurance or could not be covered by it, I'll try to put together some thoughts for you, which may be you have already expressed in your email to the CEO.

Best,

V xx

[Angellar]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Hi there

thank you for the response.i have taken a photo of one of the letters and attached below (sorry they are not great).
at the time i was employed full time which meant i would have received 6 months full pay if i was off then statutory sick pay following that.






this is the e-mail that i sent last (before i received the letter and before being fobbed off asking for a manager to call me back):

Good morning,



Thank you for your response.



I would like the below details conformed by close of business today, if you are unable to respond to the below questions in this timeframe I will be left with no other option than to approach my local MP, Watchdog and the media as I am concerned about the way that you resolve complaints and the way that you have performed sales in the past.



1. Do you have copies of

my credit agreements and the T&CS of the PPI policy that I have requested. You have stated that where available you will send copies of these implying that you may not have them. As a side note your teams were unable to locate the River Island details over the phone claiming they were likely to have been archived.



2. Are you working inline with the FCA guidelines as I have been informed that my complaint regarding misselling has been rejected as I did not exercise my rights to cancel the policy? This is clearly non complaint to the FCA handbook.



3.Why have you not addressed my initial complaint that I was missold as I was not clearly informed as to what Ppi was and whether or not it was suitable for me as per the phone call to your Ppi team it was simply rejected as I did not exercise my right to cancel?



4.Why are you unable to give me a timescale to have my complaint reviewed when you have all of the details?



5. Why did I have to send in all of the details and then receive a call from your team asking some of them again?



6. You have said you sent a letter on the 3rd July detailing my options. This has not been received and I am now questioning whether or not it was actually sent. Can you please email me a copy?



7. I still do not understand why I was advised that my complaint was passed to New Day and I needed to contact them directly. I have since been told Santander will respond to my complaint. Please confirm?



8. There is media advising that GE money were fined a large sum of money for misselling over the period that I am complaining about, which they admitted to and also admitted that they knew about. Have previous fines etc been considered in these ppi complaints?



9. My complaint also includes the fact that your teams selling the Ppi were not trained and it they were not clear and transparent in their sales activity, what training and quality measures were put into place to ensure that this was not the case?



10. Whilst I appreciate you have priorities with your workload or work commitments, I would like to understand why you felt it was appropriate to tell me this based on the fact that I am unhappy about my complaints which have been with you for several weeks? This has really upset me as I feel that I am being treat as an annoyance and I also feel that this is a way of fobbing me off rather than answering my questions.



I look forward to your response and hope that it is satisfactory.

i would really appreciate your thoughts on this as. thank you for your support so far

(p.s apologies my caps lock does not appear to be working so sorry for the little "i"s)

thanks a x

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Thank you very much for that.
It is a good letter.
Unfortunately the pictures did not come out at all.
instead there are 2 ?? marks


May be you can try to post those pictures again, please, if possible.


thank you.


what happened after that email you sent, what is the latest update?


If I am not wrong, they would not email to you as for some reason it is against their policies, unless it changed recently.
The only email they usually send is just an acknowledgement of your complaint to the CEO office, usually sent by Kattie L Lunn.
If they told you who is assigned to your case from the CEO office, you can call that person. If you do so, the best to have a witness to your conversation, have phone on the loudspeakers and even ask their permission to record the conversation.


What was their latest response?
Did they clarified what is New Day?
The way they behave is exactly like in Old Days, in the worst traditions of GE Capital.
When I Googled New Day, I saw it is some part of Santander.


The fact that you had 6 months of full pay and then sick pay shows that, unless you were led to belive it was necessary to take it, or were given misleading information or did not have a clue that you bought something, by signing where indicated, in no way you would have made an "informed decision" to buy something you had no need to buy.


So, without copy of the letter from them, if understand correctly, they based their rejection on the facts, that
1) you signed the agreement (where indicated!)
2) you did not cancel your policy


is that right?


What else?


Something like:


"they did not push you to take the policy, it was not mandatory?"
"The premiums would have shown on your statements etc.?"
"It was non advised sale, so they did not have to take your circumstances into consideration.?.." Etc...
"The main features would have been described to you at the point of sale or SOON AFTER?"
"The policy would have been sent by post?"


any of it is in the letter you received?


If it was so, then why did you take it?
you are not insane!, to add unnecessary expenses. We always try to save money, to reduce the costs, to get discounts where possible.
why would you want to get some expencive cover you do not need at all?


it does not make any sense, it does not sound reasonable.
It clearly indicates that you were either misled or not being aware that you took this PPI.
It is an absurd to suggest that with your circumstances you would chose to take that policy!


You clearly did not have any reason to buy it, but they, on the other hand, had all the reasons to sell it to you.


Again Santander acts like they are not aware that mis-sale ever existed!


it is unnatural for us to buy something we do not need, unless we are led to believe we have to take it, or we do not realise we are signing for it.


Your letter is really good, both the content and the structure.


I'll wait for your update and will try to respond as soon as I have a chance.


it is good that you mentioned your MP and the press.


best,


Vx

[Angellar]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

HI

Sorry for the late reply. i have tried adding the photos again and they are still not working (i will keep trying)

you are spot on with the reasons for rejection:
-purchase of ppi was on a non advised basis with sufficient information provided at the point of sale or soon afterwards to allow you to make an informed choice
-no advice was provided or recommendations were made regarding the appropriateness of the ppi or otherwise of the insurance.
- you were asked to sign a box within the cca for this
- documentation would have been sent in the post 30 days after the agreement was made advising you that you can cancel at 30 days notice and this appeared on my statement.
- it has never been a policy to sell mandatory ppi with the cca

summary
-evidence indicates that you were aware of the main terms of the ppi including inclusions and exclusions and limitations that would apply
-you were provided with sufficient information to make an informed choice to take this cover.
- the policy could have been cancelled at any point.


most of the emails have had a response from Katie Lunn that honestly does not help and does not set any expectations. i do have an email from the complaints chairman's call back team but that advised that they would be sending my complaint to the new day ltd team.

i am currently thinking of writing a giant response letter as i contacted the ceo last Friday which is in line with the "en devour to respond in the next 7 to 14 days"

please let me know your thoughts

axx

[Angellar]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

this is my draft response to the inbox.

please let me know your thoughts

thanks

a xx

Good Morning

Further to my call back requests (which you did not respond to) I have eventually received the letters that you apprently posted on the 3rd July 2014.

In relation to this and all of the emails that I have sent, I have collated a list of my outstanding points which I would like to you to respond to in order to resolve my complaint.

- I contacted you on the 20th may 2014 to raise complaints about both of the accounts (complaint references above) your team could not find one of the accounts which delayed the raising of this by 1 week. This is unacceptable and I will work on the assumption that you received the complaints at the same time. As you have received the complaints and have been unable to resolve the complaint within the 56 days I will be contacting the FOS report this.

-at the time that the CCA was taken I recieved sick pay for 6 months and SSP following this, please provide the terms of the PPI at the time that this was taken out as I do not believe that it is likely that I would have benefited from this policy at all and believe that this supports my allegation of mis-selling.

-Why have you not addressed my initial complaint that I was missold and have suggested that you will not look into my complaint further as I signed the agreement (where indicated by your team and one of the CCA copies that you have sent me clearly shows that there was an x on the box indicating that it needed a signature again supporting my claim)?

-why you believe that you do not need to follow the FCA guidelines which apply to both advised and non advised sales before and after 2005 (details below)?


"App 3.3.5
App 3.3.6
Appendix 3 Handling Payment Protection Insurance complaints


The approach to considering evidence:

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.

The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy."

-Why are you unable to give me a timescale to have my complaint reviewed when you have all of the details and have had since mid may?

-Why did I have to send in all of the details and then receive a call from your team asking some of them again?

- There is media advising that GE money were fined a large sum of money for misselling over the period that I am complaining about, which they admitted to and also admitted that they knew about. Have previous fines etc been considered in these ppi complaints? I am aware that this was for sales in 2005 but unless you can provided details of how your process changed from Oct 2004 and Jan 2005 along with the quality measure put in place the assumption will be made that this policy/ procedure remained the same.

-My complaint also includes the fact that your teams selling the Ppi were not trained and it they were not clear and transparent in their sales activity, what training and quality measures were put into place to ensure that this was not the case?

-Whilst I appreciate you have priorities with your workload or work commitments, I would like to understand why you felt it was appropriate to tell me this based on the fact that I am unhappy about my complaints which have been with you for several weeks? This has really upset me as I feel that I am being treat as an annoyance and I also feel that this is a way of fobbing me off rather than answering my questions.

- What is your current policy for handling a complaint? so far I have been treat as annoyance, told that i was not a priority and failed 2 call back requests and received no acknowledgement of my request for escalation. whilst I appreciate that you are busy I can safely say that you would be out of business if you had to wait several days for people to answer you and pay you what you were owed. Why do you feel it is appropriate to do this to others?

-You received complaint into the CEO mailbox on the 4th july 2014 and i have not had any of my points answered since then. please advise how i escalate this complaint.

thanks

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Good morning, Angel,


please do not worry about posting their letter.
i know that letter by heart.
it is their generic rejection letter they send to everyone.
no need to post it now.
I can write it myself
It is the only letter they send.


I had a look at your reply.
It is very good.


All the points you make are correct.


If by any chance you can contact your MP and be able to include him as cc in your email in your communication with CEO office, it might help. They may take your emails more seriously, seeing it has been copied to the Parliament.
I can only rely on my personal case, so, please do whatever you, yourself feel compfortable.


I will share with you what I did, but, again, please "edit" it to make it suitable for your own needs and do only what you feel happy and comfortable with.


I am going to post here a few letters I emailed to the CEO office.


May be they can be at least partly useful for you in the future.


I address there the way they mishandle our complaints, ignore the FCA, send generic letters, also I address the issue with the "x" indicating where to sign etc.


I will post those letters separately, just in case, for future use, should you need it.


What you wrote is fine.
I like it.


thank you.


V xx

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

Letter 1. After rejection letter, which, of course was identical to yours and many others.

This is what I sent.
Xx

"Mishandling PPI redress


Dear Sir/Madam,


Ref:


I felt I should let you know that your PPI complaints department at Santander acts with persistent, deliberate and repeated refusal to abide by Law and Regulation defining proper behaviour.


The letter I received (issued on...) once again proves that your company is either not aware of the FCA guidelines or deliberately chose to ignore them.


I enclose my original letter of complaint (of...) as well as your reply.


You sent me a reply, but not an answer.


Once again I repeat that I am....
Therefore I cannot ever be covered by this PPI for......benefit.
This......was never disclosed to me.
![ In your case, this PPI is useless for you as you.....please insert your personal circumstances...]


Your letter does not address the points I made in my complaint, twists the facts and is written in breach of the FCA guidelines many times over.


In general this letter demonstrates that your PPI department acts as if they are above the FCA guidelines.
They seem to chose to ignore them and pretend that PPI mis-sales never happened.


They are either not aware or pretend that they are not aware that FCA regulations apply to complaints about sales which took place PRIOR 14 January 2005 as guidance. (FCA, App.3.10)


They do not know, or pretend not to know, that it applies to any sale whether it was on advised or NON ADVISED basis (FCA, App. 3.1.1 (2)


They either do not know, or pretend not to know, that for NON ADVISED sale the main features of the policy, including the exclusions and limitations have to be disclosed during the sale, "in a good time before sale was completed", "in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading" to enable a customer to make "an informed" decision.
It has to be done BEFORE sale is completed, not after.


Your firm admits that untrained people were selling this product and for you it makes it right and justifiable to sell a product which you cannot deliver.
![ In your case, to sell the product which customer does not need and has no intention to buy].


You admit that there is no evidence what happened at the point of sale, which was done by untrained person, but you assume that this untrained person did everything correctly and you state that you believe that I was made fully informed about the policy - by the untrained person.


This would mean that I must obviously have been told about main ........
Of course, after such a disclosure I must have made an informed decision to take the policy which I knew would not have covered me.
![ In your case, Angel, took the policy, which you obviously do not needed].
You cannot suggest such an absurdity.


The untrained person had to give me clear and not misleading information about this policy and your company assumes that it was done correctly and after being told by the untrained person about......your company suggested I chose to take this PPI.
It is not believable.
It looks like now untrained persons are in charge of the investigations and decision making about PPI complaints.
They must be untrained, unless it is done deliberately.


Is it gross incompetence or institutionalised malpractice from your PPI complaints department?


Your company totally ignored my testimony about what happened in the store, though it is, in fact, supported by the evidence.


As I said, the agreement form was filled in not by me, which was, apparently a common practice, according to you (it happened to me for the first time though), then I was asked to check the spelling of my name and address and to sign the form where indicated by the "x". The "x" was indeed in the field provided for this so called optional cover.


However this was not once mentioned in your final letter.
You chose to ignore it.
Your company sent me the agreement form to prove that I signed the field provided for the PPI cover in full knowledge of this meaning.
The "x" proves the opposite: that I signed the box because it was indicated where to put my signature.


Why is "x" there?
Is it also a common practice to indicate where to sign and to mark by the "x" a field for an optional cover?
Or it was done by untrained person because she was untrained?


"FCA 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. "


Is anybody in your company familiar with the FCA guidelines?




The letter of rejection I received, appears to be based mainly on two points:
1) My signature - where there is a mark "x" to sign.
2) The fact that I did not cancel the policy.


I refer you to the FCA guidelines:


3.3


Appendix 3 Handling Payment Protection Insurance complaint


The approach to considering evidence


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.


App 3.3.6 The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.




Did anybody in your company ever read the FCA guidelines?


It is scandalous, outrageous and deplorable, that your PPI department treat customers in such a manner.


At that stage I decided that this whole matter deserves the attention of national papers.


My personal case is now being escalated.


It is not any more about me.
It affects large numbers of people and that is why I see it as my public duty to show what you are doing and how you behave.


All I need to do is just give the true account of the events, showing how your company treated me and my genuine case of mis-sale.
It will enable people to make an "informed" decision whom to bank with.


I am going to use my case - which is straight forward and genuine, which is a text book case of mis-sale without a shadow of doubt - as an example how your company is mishandling redress, by rejecting cases like mine, where I was paying for years monthly premiums for a benefit .........


This whole business is potentially a matter for the FCA and the PRA because it is about a breach of the fiduciary duty of the directors and Santander to implement effective internal controls to ensure compliance with law and regulation.




The fact that I....... had to take more than month of my time to learn everything about FCA etc. has involved a serious loss of valuable time. I am shocked and frustrated that I should have to do work your staff were unable to do.


Your shameful behaviour with your dishonest and bulling tactics which are designed to wear customers down in hope a customer will not pursue a complaint, are damaging for whole financial industry and has to stop.


In this connection may I remind you what a spokesperson from the British Bankers Association says:
"The banking industry is committed to regaining the trust of all its customers. Our members are fully aware of the responsibility this places on them to work constructively with customers, providing redress where mistakes have been made and ensuring that, in the future, products and services are designed with the customer's best interest at heart.... Staff will now be rewarded only for behaving in ways which are in the long term best interests of customers. Our members all aim to cut out incentives which encourage reckless behaviour."


The behaviour I have experience from your company, unfortunately is in direct contradiction to this statement.




Your faithfully,
....,
"
Angel, you are not yet at that stage.

but, just in case, I thought I'll share with you and others what I sent.

Now I am going to post my second one.

Vxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Please post your own experience of reclaiming PPI from Santander

My second letter, after rejection by the head of complaint department:


"
Dear Sir/Madam,

Following my previous email to you (....)

I enclose the letter I received, dated....

This letter is signed by head of the department.

Are you aware what is going on with your company?

Are your directors aware of the failure of internal control, whereby such malpractice, based on either ignorance or instruction, has and is occurring?

FCA App. 3.2.2

"The firm should seek to establish the true substance of the complaint..."

Should I clarify again?

1.
I AM NOT COVERED by your PPI due to my...... and I WAS NOT MADE AWARE of it AT THE POINT OF SALE. That means that sale was flawed.

1) FOR NON ADVISED SALE all the main features, including exclusions and limitations should be disclosed BEFORE the sale is completed.
2) Had I been made aware of the main features, exclusions and limitations DURING the sale and BEFORE the sale was completed, it makes it impossible to suggest that I would have taken this cover.
We have been through that many times.

2.
I was not made aware that PPI was optional.
I was not given a chance to fill in the agreement myself (according to you a normal procedure), I was told to check the spelling of my name and address and to SIGN WHERE INDICATED by the "x".

1) In my telephone conversation with your representative I made a comment about the fact that the mark "x" should not be put in the field for the signature for an additional optional product.
It is misleading for a customer who is told to sign where indicated. It is a manipulation, designed to trick a customer into signing without realising what he is signing, particularly, as you admitted, when the sale was conducted by an untrained person.

However instead of acting in an honest and proper way, which defines normal moral behaviour, and just admitting, that it is wrong to put a cross in the field for a signature for an optional cover, indicating where to sign etc., your company decided to continue this ping pong game with words, avoiding the main issue, and again totally ignoring the FCA guidelines and the fiduciary duties you are required to observe.

I cannot believe ......, being head of the department, is not aware that this issue has already been addressed by the FOS in the case studies (included in the enclosures to this letter).
She should know the FOS approach to similar cases where the form was not filled in by the customer and the "x" was placed to mark the box for the PPI to indicate where to sign.

As a head of the department ..... should be aware of the:

FCA APP 3.4. Root cause analysis
DISP 1.3.3 R requires the firm to put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems. If a firm receives complaints about its sales of payment protection contracts it should analyse the root causes of those complaints including, but not limited to, the consideration of:
......
(5) relevant regulatory findings; and
(6) relevant decisions by the Financial Ombudsman Service.


*****
I enclose the relevant links and material.

In short:

1.Guidelines are for both advised and non advised sales, before and after 2005.
2.The information has to be given before sale is completed for non advised sales, not post sale relying on the policy document sent later by post as an excuse to avoid responsibility.
It has to be done BEFORE sale is completed.
3.This requirement is specifically emphasised by the FOS, where it is stated, that it is not enough to remind a customer to read the policy.
4. The company should not reject a complaint on the basis that the policy was not cancelled.
5. The company should not assume that by signing the document a customer agreed to take the policy.
6. There is requirement to draw a customer's attention to the onerous terms of the policy for a NON ADVISED sale BEFORE it is completed.

The fact that I had this PPI proves that the main features......, including.....were not disclosed to me before the sale was completed, as I have stated many times.

7. The company should learn from the relevant FCA and FOS documents, case studies, relevant FOS findings etc. to see if some similar cases were already upheld.
This should be the company's job, not mine.

8. The same problem should not be repeated again and again.
If the same problem keeps occurring and the FOS has already upheld cases with similar circumstances, while the company keeps rejecting similar cases, ignoring the relevant findings, that means something is wrong with the company, according to the FCA.

8. FOS gives clear criteria about the policy documents, using case studies as examples, which are quoted in the enclosure to this communication.

9. FOS has already used the case study number 1, issue 71, year 2008, to show that "x" in front of a signature supports the account of the events, given by the customer, not the business.
The same case 71/1 is given as an example, where the FOS disagrees that premiums shown on the statements in any way prove that the cover is optional.
However since 2008 this business keeps repeating the exact same wording in their template rejection letters, which now I have a collection of.

The FOS published case 71/1 in 2008! Your company still writes exactly the same letters, using the same words. The FCA states that the company must learn from the previous cases and findings and not repeat the same misinformation.

It is obvious, in that letter everything is twisted and the actual point is not addressed at all.

It is another clear example of an institutionalised tactic from your PPI complaint department, shameful tactic, designed to wear customers down.

This time, unfortunately, it is written by the head of the department, which is very worrying.

In what way do you think your company have complied with the FCA guidelines and the FOS regulations, in what way those regulations have been applied to the handling of my complaint?

Looking at your letter, it is impossible to believe that your complaint department have ever read the regulations.

Why does Santander think that the FCA guidelines and regulations, which have been accepted by all other companies, do not apply to them?

Why do you repeatedly raise the points which have already been deemed unacceptable by the FCA and the FOS?

Yours faithfully,

Enclosed:

FCA/FOS

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/FCA/DISP/App/3

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...pproach.html#7

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...omplaints.html

**************
[
FCA / DISP / App 3 / 1
DISP App 3.1 Introduction

DISP App 3.1.1
01/04/2013
FCA
(1) 1This appendix sets out how a firm should handle complaints relating to the sale of a payment protection contract by the firm which express dissatisfaction about the sale, or matters related to the sale, including where there is a rejection of claims on the grounds of ineligibility or exclusion (but not matters unrelated to the sale, such as delays in claims handling).
(2) It relates to the sale of any payment protection contract whenever the sale took place and irrespective of whether it was on an advised or non-advised basis; conducted through any sales channel; in connection with any type of loan or credit product, or none; and for a regular premium or single premium payment. It applies whether the policy is currently in force, was cancelled during the policy term or ran its full term.
DISP App 3.1.2
01/04/2013
FCA
The aspects of complaint handling dealt with in this appendix are how the firm should:
(1) assess a complaint in order to establish whether the firm's conduct of the sale failed to comply with the rules, or was otherwise in breach of the duty of care or any other requirement of the general law (taking into account relevant materials published by the FCA, other relevant regulators, the Financial Ombudsman Service and former schemes). In this appendix this is referred to as a "breach or failing" by the firm;
(2) determine the way the complainant would have acted if a breach or failing by the firm had not occurred; and
(3) determine appropriate redress (if any) to offer to a complainant.

FCA / DISP / App 3 / 2
DISP App 3.2 The assessment of a complaint

DISP App 3.2.1
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should consider, in the light of all the information provided by the complainant and otherwise already held by or available to the firm, whether there was a breach or failing by the firm.
DISP App 3.2.2
01/04/2013
FCA
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 thecomplaint. This is likely to require an approach to complaint handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the complaint.

DISP App 3.3 The approach to considering evidence

DISP App 3.3.3
01/04/2013
FCA
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
01/04/2013
FCA
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 firmshould 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
01/04/2013
FCA
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 3.3.6
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.

DISP App 3.3.7
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.
DISP App 3.3.8
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.
DISP App 3.3.9
01/04/2013
FCA
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 3.3.10
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact give advice in a particular sale. The firm should consider the available evidence and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly or implicitly) to the complainant.
DISP App 3.3.11
01/04/2013
FCA
The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant's information needs.
DISP App 3.3.12
01/04/2013
FCA
In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant's information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:
(1) the complainant's individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firmshould take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant's objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable customer's perspective, the documentation provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient information was communicated during the sale discussion for the customer to make an informed decision (for example, did the firm give an oral explanation of the main characteristics of the policy or specifically draw the complainant's attention to that information on a computer screen or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the firm in response to questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
FCA / DISP / App 3 / 10
DISP App 3.10 Application: evidential provisions

DISP App 3.10.1
01/04/2013
FCA
The evidential provisions in this appendix apply in relation to complaints about sales that took place on or after 14 January 2005.
DISP App 3.10.2
01/04/2013
FCA
For complaints about sales that took place prior to 14 January 2005, a firm should take account of the evidential provisions in this appendix as if they were guidance.

DISP App 3.6 Determining the effect of a breach or failing

DISP App 3.6.1
01/04/2013
FCA
Where the firm determines that there was a breach or failing, the firm should consider whether the complainant would have bought the payment protection contract in the absence of that breach or failing.
DISP App 3.6.2
01/04/2013
FCA
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm should presume that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought if the sale was substantially flawed, for example where the firm:
(1) pressured the complainant into purchasing the payment protection contract; or
(2) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, that the policy was optional; or
(3) made the sale without the complainant's explicit agreement to purchase the policy; or
(4) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the significant exclusions and limitations, i.e. those that would tend to affect the decisions of customers generally to buy the policy; or
(5) did not, for an advised sale (including where the firm gave advice in a non-advised sales process) take reasonable care to ensure that the policy was suitable for the complainant's demands and needs taking into account all relevant factors, including level of cover, cost, and relevant exclusions, excesses, limitations and conditions; or
(6) did not take reasonable steps to ensure the complainant only bought a policy for which he was eligible to claim benefits; or
(7) found, while arranging the policy, that parts of the cover did not apply but did not disclose this to the customer, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading; or
(8) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the total (not just monthly) cost of the policy separately from any other prices (or the basis for calculating it so that the complainant could verify it); or
(9) recommended a single premium payment protection contract without taking reasonable steps, where the policy did not have a pro-rata refund, to establish whether there was a prospect that the complainant would repay or refinance the loan before the end of the term; or
(10) provided misleading or inaccurate information about the policy to the complainant; or
(11) sold the complainant a policy where the total cost of the policy (including any interest paid on the premium) would exceed the benefits payable under the policy (other than benefits payable under life cover); or

FCA / DISP / App 3 / 4
DISP App 3.4 Root cause analysis

DISP App 3.4.1
01/04/2013
FCA
DISP 1.3.3 R requires the firm to put in place appropriate management controls and take reasonable steps to ensure that in handling complaints it identifies and remedies any recurring or systemic problems. If a firm receives complaints about its sales of payment protection contracts it should analyse the root causes of those complaints including, but not limited to, the consideration of:
(1) the concerns raised by complainants (both at the time of the sale and subsequently);
(2) the reasons for both rejected claims and complaints;
(3) the firm's stated sales practice(s) at the relevant time(s);
(4) evidence available to the firm about the actual sales practice(s) at the relevant time(s) (this might include recollections of staff and complainants, compliance records, and other material produced at the time about specific transactions, for example call recordings and incentives given to advisers);
(5) relevant regulatory findings; and
(6) relevant decisions by the Financial Ombudsman Service.
DISP App 3.4.2
01/04/2013
FCA
Where consideration of the root causes of complaints suggests recurring or systemic problems in the firm's sales practices for payment protection contracts, the firm should, in assessing an individual complaint, consider whether the problems were likely to have contributed to a breach or failing in the individual case, even if those problems were not referred to specifically by the complainant.
DISP App 3.4.3
01/04/2013
FCA
Where a firm identifies (from its complaints or otherwise) recurring or systemic problems in its sales practices for a particular type of payment protection contract, either for its sales in general or for those from a particular location or sales channel, it should (in accordance with Principle 6 (Customers' interests) and to the extent that it applies), consider whether it ought to act with regard to the position of customers who may have suffered detriment from, or been potentially disadvantaged by such problems but who have not complained and, if so, take appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure that those customers are given appropriate redress or a proper opportunity to obtain it. In particular, the firm should:
(1) ascertain the scope and severity of the consumer detriment that might have arisen; and
(2) consider whether it is fair and reasonable for the firm to undertake proactively a redress or remediation exercise, which may include contacting customers who have not complained.
Legal information Privacy statement

FOS

did the policy documentation set out the exclusion with "sufficient prominence"?

"did the policy documentation set out the exclusion with "sufficient prominence"?"

To determine this, we look at:

the length of the document;
the size of the print;
whether the document was closely worded;
whereabouts in the document the exclusion appeared; and
whether the exclusion was set out in full and in one place - or whether it required the consumer to read more than one section to fully understand it.
We also consider whether the exclusion was set out in clear language that could be easily understood by the consumer.

case studies 12

The exclusion was set out in reasonably large print and in clear, straightforward language. It appeared on Page 2 of a two-page policy summary. We were satisfied that the exclusion was sufficiently prominent, even though it was on Page 2.
The exclusion was set out in small print on Page 2 of a two-page policy summary. The first page of the policy summary was in larger print and covered other important information about the policy. In this case we were not satisfied that the exclusion was sufficiently prominent. We concluded that there was a risk the consumer might think it was less important than the information on the previous page.
The exclusion was set out on Page 5 of a 10-page policy document. Even though it was set out in reasonably large print and in clear, straightforward language, we were not satisfied that it was sufficiently prominent.
was an exclusion drawn to a consumer's attention before they decided to buy a policy?

We look at the evidence to establish whether:

a financial business told a consumer about a relevant exclusion before it asked them to agree to take out the policy; and
the business explained the exclusion clearly, in straightforward language.
what responsibilities do financial businesses have in relation to employment terms?

"what responsibilities do financial businesses have in relation to employment terms?"

When dealing with cases involving policy terms that we consider to be onerous or unusual for the consumer, we usually expect the financial business to have brought them to the consumer's attention when they took out the policy. This is the case in both advised and non-advised sales.

In cases involving non-advised sales, we would expect the financial business to have drawn the terms to the consumer's attention to allow them to make an informed choice.

The same applies in cases involving advised sales, but we would also expect the financial business to have checked that the policy was suitable for the consumer's needs.

were the exclusions drawn to the consumer's attention during the sales process?

Where a financial business did not bring the employment terms to a consumer's attention when they took out the policy - and where those terms were relevant to the consumer's circumstances - we may uphold the complaint. In the cases we see, we usually conclude that it is not enough simply to have reminded the consumer to read the policy.

were the policy's employment terms "onerous or unusual"?

"were the policy's employment terms "onerous or unusual"?"

When we deal with complaints relating to a policy's employment terms, we generally view an "onerous or unusual" employment term as one that:

is not in line with what consumers would reasonably expect; or
completely excludes a consumer from cover because of their employment status; or
suggests that a consumer's employment circumstances must change with some degree of permanency or finality for them to successfully claim unemployment benefit; or
requires a self-employed consumer looking to claim for unemployment to do something over and above what an employed person who had just been made redundant would have to do to make a successful claim.

ombudsman news

issue 71

August 2008

complaints about payment protection insurance

This year we have been receiving significant numbers of complaints about the sale of payment protection insurance. Sometimes called "loan protection" or abbreviated as "PPI", this type of insurance covers loan or debt repayments in certain circumstances, for example if the policyholder is unable to work because of illness or if they are made redundant. How these policies work - and the range of benefits they offer - can vary considerably from policy to policy.

This selection of recent case studies indicates the approach we are likely to take when considering individual complaints about the sale of payment protection policies.

As we explained in our annual review for 2007/08 (published in May this year), when considering complaints about payment protection insurance we continue to apply our long-standing approach to the sale of insurance products. The complaints we have settled have raised very few new issues. Applying the standards set by the law, by good industry practice since the 1990s, and in recent times by the FSA, enabled us to be clear about the approach we take to the selling of insurance - and to follow this approach consistently in these cases.

As the cases show, the details of the particular policies sold, and the sales practices of the businesses concerned, can make a significant difference to the outcomes of these cases - as can the circumstances of the individual customer.

Issue 71 index of case studies
71/1- customer says he was never told that a payment protection policy was optional when he took out a credit card

A trainee chef, Mr A, complained about the way in which he was sold a payment protection policy when he applied for a credit card. He said he had understood he was being insured, but had not been told that the policy was optional.

He said he was not given any information about the cost or benefits of the policy. And he stated that a representative of the credit card company had simply filled in the application form for him, written a small "x" at the bottom of the form, and then asked him to sign his name next to the "x".

The credit card company rejected his complaint. It said it was clear from the application form that the insurance policy was optional and that Mr A had chosen to take it. The company also said that the insurance premiums were itemised on Mr A's credit card statement each month, so he must have been aware that he was paying for an additional - optional - product.

complaint upheld
We asked the credit card company to send us Mr A's application form. We noted that on the final page, close to the space for the customer's signature, there was a "tick box" next to a statement that the customer wanted payment protection insurance. This had been ticked.

The tick in the box, the written details entered on the form, and the small "x" placed next to the signature all appeared to have been written in the same handwriting, using a ballpoint pen. However, the signature itself looked markedly different and had been written with a thick, felt-tipped pen. This tended to support Mr A's account of events.

We also noted that Mr A had been 19 years of age at the time of the sale. This was the first time he had applied for any financial product or service other than a basic bank account.

We did not agree with the credit card company that it was clear from the application form that the insurance cover was optional. Nor did we agree that, by signing the form, Mr A had clearly indicated his wish to buy the policy. There was no evidence that he had been told anything about the cover at the time of the sale. And the fact that Mr A's statement showed that the premium was collected monthly did not mean he must have been aware the insurance was optional.

We upheld the complaint and told the company to return to Mr A all the premiums he had paid to date, plus interest.

A statement from the FCA said: 'We expect all firms to comply with our rules and treat their customers fairly.
'Firms know that PPI complaints must be thoroughly investigated and that appropriate action, where required, is taken promptly.
'Our rules are very clear that firms are expected to learn from previous complaints. So if there are significant numbers of complaints coming in about the same thing, that is a clear warning sign that something isn't right.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2u63bW1iJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
]
"

Angel, you do not need all that information, FCA etc.,
however, I thought it might become useful for someone one day

Vxx