Capital One

[L'pool64]

Good afternoon my friends,

I hope that all is well and everybody enjoyed the holidays.

I would be grateful for some help as my brain has packed up and left for the day!!!

I have mentioned previously that I have a case with Capital One re PPI. The initial rejection letter did not address my specific concerns and I wrote several times to the CEO but failed to get any further. I decided to contact my MP about my case and although he is a lovely man, he obviously thought further dealings with Capital One were a waste of time. He referred my case to the Ombudsman. I followed up and sent what I thought was a fairly robust case to the FOS. I was notified a month ago that the adjudicator had upheld my case and a response was awaited from Capital One. Capital One disagrees with the FOS and has requested that the case goes forward to an actual Ombudsman.

I would like to respond to FOS on the back of Capital One's argument. It is this that I need help with.

My case: Charging not fully explained.
"1. Charging; there are in fact several aspects to this. It does not cost £xxx amount per hundred as indicated on literature. This is only the initial aspect of the cost. The monthly PPI premium, when added to the ongoing balance of the card (which incurred interest in excess of 20%), increases substantially.

Additionally, supported by the Office of Fair Trading's April 2006 statement into credit card charges, which noted that the level of charges at the time and, prior to that period were unfair, Capitol One's PPI premiums were added to my account, where charges (for late payments and going over the credit limit) well in excess of the recommended £12.00, had been applied. Again, substantially increasing the cost.


So, as per my initial complaint, please explain to me how the information that Capital One provided when I took the PPI out, made these facts clear and, as such, would have put me in a position where I was able to make an informed decision.


2. Cancellation of PPI; while I understand that cancellation of the entire contract was possible within a 30 day cooling off period, I was unaware that the PPI could be cancelled at any time. (At least that appears to have been the case from information that I have been able to access on the internet).


So, as per my initial complaint, please explain to me how the information that Capital One provided when I took the PPI out, made these facts clear and, as such, would have put me in a position where I was able to make an informed decision.


Finally, I enclose details of my employment contract that shows my sickness
benefits. My position as Xxxxxxxxxx gave me the added benefit of a Permanent Health Insurance policy until retirement. I have enclosed the latest booklet, applicable to my position, issued in April 2002."


Capital One response to the Ombudsman:
"I note that your only reason for upholding the complaint centres on concerns about the cost and benefits of the policy. You do not think the customer would have taken out the policy if we had made the costs and benefits clearer. Please refer to the information........ You hold in your records...." As such I am not in agreement with your conclusion. I would respectfully request that this complaint is referred to an Ombudsman."

I have already sent FOS information re an informed decision, evidence of similar cases that they have upheld, an admission from Capital one re not sending out policy documents promptly:
i don,t know what else to do. It is like the FOS say one thing & Cap One say "I disagree...." end of story!!

This is a long note, many thanks for your patience.

Very best regards,

:beagle:Xxxxxx

[L'pool64]

Re: Capital One

Hi guys,

Anyone think they can help me at all?

Many thanks

:beagle:Xxxxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

Good morning, my dear L'pool.
I am so sorry, what a mess.


So far you did everything correct, could not be more clear.
That is why adjudicator upheld your complaint.


Unfortunately that seems to become more common that banks challenge the adjudicator's decision and do what Capital One has done in the hope that the Ombudsman might change their mind.
My understating is once they referred, it has to go through the Ombudsman now.
However you have a strong case, that is why the adjudicator agreed with you.


It is clear that you could not have made an informed decision to take this PPI if the information was disclosed to you properly. That information included important facts which would have influenced your decision. The fact that you ended up with that insurance, considering your personal circumstances, on its own, proves that it was mis-sold to you. Should you be given all the required information in clear and not misleading way, you would not have taken it. Should you be told that you can cancelled it at any time, you would have cancelled it. Unless we are insane, we do not pay for something we do not need, unless we are misled and believe that it is necessary.


Yes, the Capital One, just ignores all that and ignores the adjudicator's decision and says "we disagree". Total absurd.
But, unfortunately they can do it legally as far as I know.
Now comes the most important part, to make sure that Capital One will not be able to confuse the FOS.


I noticed that in cases when banks do that referral and challenge adjudicator, they often do not address the issue of your complaint, but provide a lot of unclear, vague and sometime even not an honest information.
They say "we disagree".
They use a lot of words, but not addressing your issues. That is their tactic.
They provide the Ombudsman with a lot of rubbish, instead of the relevant information.
You try to disprove that, their obvious rubbish, dealing with less important facts, as they build up their cases, based on those minor bits and pieces, which are often not true and not relevant, but sound more or less ok, if you don't look deep.
The aim of the bank is to distract you and, the most important, to distract the FOS from the main issue. Like a Ping Pong game of words.
Their plan is to make it more and more complicated.
The root of the matter becomes hidden and not visible any more, only many surfaces, full of garbage. You have to "skin" it, "strip" it back to the root, to remove this "weed".
They are using the tactics of defence attorney, when they confuse jury by talking a lot and making a good sense of each sentence, but if you add it up, the construction collapse.
However jury may not notice. That is the aim of such a referral. Everybody will be lost in those irrelevant bits and pieces and main issue will be forgotten and overlooked by the Ombudsman. That is what they count on and hope for.
Once you know what it is about, you are in the position not to let them do it.
it is important to know what they plan and to be ahead of them to prevent it.


You are very good writing letters.


Please, make your points are very clear, break them into the sections like 1. 2. Etc.
It is good to make a short summary with the key facts at the beginning and then expand them.


I believe the FOS might ask you for more information or for your response to their challenge.


It will be very important not to get involved in the Capital One game, but to play your own.


Capital One does not have a real grounds to challenge your case, but they have a team of people who are preparing and planning how to confuse the FOS, how to say a lot about nothing to make the Ombudsman question their original decision.
Once bank is challenging the adjudicator's decision, it has a psychological impact on the FOS. The FOS might think, may be the bank have some reasonable argument, otherwise they would not challenge, would they? The answer is, yes, they challenge without any ground, because that is how one's mind works. If they argue, that means they have grounds, but in truth, they do not.
But the fact, they challenged, unsettles the Ombudsman and make them think that, just may be, they made the wrong decision, brings a doubt. That is the Capital One's intention.


That is why you have to be prepared and be very clear, when replying to the FOS, to separate the most important facts and stress them first, then less important bits and pieces. To use a very clear structure in your responses.


Your case is very straight forward. You just have to present it in a very clear way. You have everything to win your case.
As long as you know what Capital One is going to do now - to confuse the Ombudsman - you can not let it happen and to clarify everything for the Ombudsman.
Remember, your case is strong. You wrirte fantastic letters, you will be given time to respond, you have your own "team" - all of us . You just have to make sure your responses are clear, when time comes.


Di has a very good experience dealing with that stage of complaint.
She will be the best advisor. She is a real expert.


What I want to make sure is that we won't let Capital One to confuse the Ombudsman. The FOS is good in most of the cases, however sometime you come across someone who is not as smart as they used to be. They have to be given a very clear picture by yourself, while they will be presented with "distorted" story from the bank.
You can request all the information the bank provides to the Ombudsman, while challenging their decision, and you will see if Capital One did not tell the truth to the FOS.
Di will advise you on that.


Ajudicator upheld your case, because it is the right thing to do.
Capital One just say "we disagree", because their plan is to confuse the FOS.
We know about their plan and we will not let it happen.
We will repeat your main points in a very clear way.
This is our strategy, my darling.
We'll do it together.


Speaking of long posts....
I just thought it is important to understand what is happening and why, it makes it easier to fight them - together, of course, as always.
lol
Xxxxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

L'pool, your letter is very good.
Let's see what other experts will say.

What is the ground of their challenge, besides that they "disagree"?
Anything else? What is the basis of their disagreement?

Cost and benefits is a very important reason as, should it be expressed clearly to you, it certainly would have influenced your decision about taking the policy. It is absolutely sufficient.
It is good enough to be the "only reason for upholding".
This reason being the "only reason for upholding" is not a ground for a challenge. It is a very strong reason.
That is what I mean about using a lot of words by the bank, seemingly making sense, but in reality, no sense at all, a total absurd.

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:

(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...

(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) provided misleading or inaccurate information about the policy to the complainant; or


(10) soldt hecomplainant 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..."

I doubt that Capital One has any "evidence to the contrary".
That means it was mis-sold, that means it should be redressed.


Nothing else you can add.
The information you provided without a shadow of doubt proves mis-sale. That is why it was upheld.

I am sure, our experts will help more.
those are just initial thoughts, my darling.

Xxx

[L'pool64]

Re: Capital One

Victoria,

What would we do without you? You are a very clear thinker and what you have said is exactly right. I will work on my response over the weekend; you have given me the basis.

i can't thank you enough. I felt yesterday like I had been roundly kicked!!!

Di mentioned before Christmas that it seemed like many more companies were referring customers onto the Ombudsman, rather than dealing with the complaint. I must admit that at the time, especially with Capital One, I totally agreed with Di. Unfortunately (and probably stupidly ), I thought that once the adjudicator said "yes", the company would say o k. So that is another lesson learned!!!!

Again many, many thanks. If you were closer I'd give you a big hug.

:beagle: Xxxxxxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

You are very welcome, my darling!
I take all your cases personally.
We all are learning hard way.
Now, let's teach them
I am here for you
Xxxxx

[loulouxx]

Re: Capital One

Hi guys,

I can guess why capital one has challenged it. They have a very low uphold rate in favour of the customer. Mine never got to the FOS stage luckily so I'm not sure how that works. Did u get a letter from the FOS stating the reason why they disagreed? If so, I would then lay out their arguement point by point then counter each one with yours. Just been really clear as Victoria said its rare the the Ombudsman go against the adjudicator! Good Luck n keep us updated xxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

Thank you, Loulou.
It makes a lot of sense. It is highly unlikely that the FOS will go against their own adjudicator.
Good luck, L'pool.
Xxx

[loulouxx]

Re: Capital One

Capital one's FOS cases that were upheld in favour of the customer was 11% so it's really tight but as it was already upheld then I don't see a ombudsman changing that. Good Luck xxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

I agree, Loulou.
I did not know Capital One were so hard.
You are right. The fact that it was upheld by their adjudicator is a strong point in favour of the good outcome from the FOS for L'pool.
Fingers crossed.
Xxx

[di30]

Re: Capital One

Hi folks

So sorry I've not been here any earlier and L'pool I am so sorry to hear of your case too!!

I can see you have had very good advice here and wishing you luck, keep at them and keep us posted every step of the way.

I have currently been dealing with a matter myself as you know in regards of a packaged account within the FOS, where at first it was like "We agree with the bank, then after forwarding extra info we agree with you that we must now recommend that the bank refund you", then later on because the bank did not like it, it was "we now agree with the bank, but you do have the opportunity to move forward to the Ombudsman"!

I have been going manic with them, because they do seem to be siding more with banks despite the efforts of you proving that you were genuinely mis sold etc.....

Now my previous adjudicator left the FOS and we have another in place, so they have started again as such, and its also with the Ombudsman as well but have been going round in circles! As they are aware of my kidney disease and high blood pressure, they know that any amount of stress can higher my bp and cause more damage to my kidneys, they have been made clear of this before, so they fast tracked the case, but this was before xmas time, but its still going on and its been with them almost 2 years (the fast tracking though was to get it quicker to the Ombudsman not to the Adjudicator.

The latest is, Lloyds said that we specifically upgraded to Premier account in May 2007 to have the home emergency cover?? (now why would we want that when we already had adequate cover in place), then the adjudicator said they have the info to prove that!

So........with that I looked through my SAR, scanned every single piece of paperwork and there is nothing there at all to state this, so we asked for a copy to be sent by email!
The adjudicator sent this the other day and all it is is a Screenprint! it has absolutely nothing to do with any evidence that we signed for the upgrade to have the home emergency cover! (there are no signatures its just a standard screenprint of all the covers held under lloyds)!!

We have since made the FOS aware of this and we also requested details of the manager to complain about the poor service received.
They emailed back yesterday and now looking at our case in a new light! but we do think we have given them a wake up call!
We also mentioned that lloyds have done wrong straight away by providing them with info that we never received within the SAR (long story) but we did also mention that we could take them to court in regards of the banks failure etc.......

Now keep at them hun (sorry to have invaded your thread with my long story) but everyone needs to know what they are like.
There was a time the FOS were very good and would be fair, as like with some old previous cases of mine, but this one is crazy!!

Stay strong and we are with you every step of the way XxX:tinysmile_twink_t2:

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

Thank you very much for that information, dear Di.
It seems like the further we move from the original scandal with mis-sales, the worse banks behave. The whole shameful business with mis-sales is getting further and further away from the public memory. Some banks, like Santander, act like mis-sale never happened at all.
It seems like we came across a new problem, now the FOS not always acting like they are impartial.
in the past it was a very rare case, when a bank challenged a decision, made by an adjudicator. It was almost unheard of.
However now we see among our group 2 cases, yours, darling Di, and L'pool's one. That indicates that banks hope the FOS might change their mind.
When companies are regulated, we usually feel reassured because we rely on the Ombudsman to be fair. That is why we expect our cases to be upheld eventually, because our cases are genuine. We honestly provide all the information and expect the companies and the FOS to do the right thing, to treat us fairly. As simple as that.
It was usual practice, however now we can see a few disturbing signs.
This issue, about some banks, not handling the redress in a correct way and now the Ombudsman not always acting like impartial body, like it used to be, has to be addressed and brought to the attention of the relevant organisations, public and the press.
We have to find the way to put it on the right track.
We need to refresh public awareness about mis-sales of PPI and other financial products.
Such an outrageous situation should not have happened in the first place.
The only way forward for the financial industry is to restore public trust and to put wrong things right.
When companies behave in such a shameful way like in the cases of Di and L'pool, they cause a serious reputational damage for the whole financial industry.
Do we want to bank with such organisations?
What is the reason for Di to stay with Lloyds?
What is the reason for L'pool to have anything to do with Capital One?
I would have thought that banks will lose more money if they lose their long term clients, who will move all their funds elsewhere.
Would not it be better to refund what is due and to encourage clients to remain with the bank or to keep credit card, provided by the company rather then closing the account?
We cannot have any dealings with organisations we cannot trust.
How can we trust to companies who do not return funds, which were obtained not by the correct way, where sales were flawed?
In my personal case, my bank, dealing with the redress, treated me very well and it was stress free experience and very fair outcome.
If it was different, I would not have stayed with that bank for one day longer.
Let's have a brainstorm, my dear friends, and find the way to help this situation before it gets worse and goes seriously in a wrong direction.
Do we need a big court case with publicity and press coverage?
Do we need to get our Parliament involved?
Which Legal?
Whatch Dog?
Daily Mail?
Food for thought...
Lol
Xxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

My dear friends, I will be away travelling from next week, coming back on the 17th of May.
I will not be able to post during that period, unfortunately. I am so sorry.
I look forward to catching up on my return.
I hope to hear a lot of good news from you.
Best of luck!
We will stay strong and keep going.
We will get there eventually.
Even if we learn hard way, we will use our experiences to help others.
All those companies will not get rid of us so easily.
We are not going anywhere, nor the FCA guidelines
In case, anybody needs it, here it is:


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


Also, just in case, the FOS documents:


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


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


Thank you
lol
VXxx

[L'pool64]

Re: Capital One

Good Morning my friends,

thank you so very much for your very practical advice and support. It is very much appreciated.

Di, thank you for sharing your story. Once again, how many times do we need to win our case, to actually win? The most important thing for you however, is your health. If you get more sick then the so and so's really have won. The problem is that the answer is so obvious and "they" cannot or will not see it. I know that you will have everything covered but we can support you......

Victoria, I will miss you and your input very much. Thank you for the documents above. Very much appreciated. I have also been reading your past posts and have gotten very useful information/ammunition. Looking forward to having lots of good news for you when you get back!!! Xxxxxx

Loulou, thank you for your suggestion that I reply point by point. I will do exactly that and add Victoria's points as I go along.

Once again, many thanks "team LB" !!!!!!

All the best,

:beagle:Xxxxxxx

[Victoria27]

Re: Capital One

Thank you very much, L'pool.
I am with you, my dear friends. I'll be thinking of you while travelling abroad.
Everybody's stories are personal for me.
I hope to hear good news when I return.
Even if they delay good news, we will be strong together, we'll go all the way together and get there eventually.
Best of luck.
L'pool, when you have a chance, tell us, please, how is your small claim court case progressing?
Thank you.
Lol
Xxx