Tweet
Canada square operation have responded and advised that my complaint was not upheld as I had ticked in my FOS PPI questionnaire for D5 and D6 that I would receive less then 3 months pay from my employee and had less than 3 months in savings or insurance and therefore believe I would have chosen the product as I had limited means to make repayments if I had been unable to work.
I do not understand the relation between my savings and employee benefits and PPI being miss-sold and as I stated it was not stated clearly that it was optional in the FOS questionnaire. How should I respond to Canada square as they advise the case is now closed. I have attached a copy of the response in the attachments, appreciate and advise I can get.
I have drafted an initial response below.
"In response to my letter of complaint concerning the above accounts, your letter of 16/06/16 explained that you were unable to find evidence of mis-selling, and that you were therefore unable to refund the PPI premiums applied because I had stated in my questionnaire under D 5. That I would receive less than 3 months’ pay and in D6 that I have less than 3 months savings to cover my card payments.
It is my belief that my complaint has not been dealt with properly and fairly under the FSA rules as provided in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 -. I respectfully but firmly request that you review your earlier decision not to uphold my complaint, and that you now do so in compliance with the FSA rules. I appreciate your time and attention to the task of investigating my claim, but your rejection of my complaint appears to be based solely on your own apparent judgement of my ability to pay of my debt without PPI and not on the flaws in sale process mentioned within your own letter in response to my complaint.
Despite the letter you have issued, there is no reason that refutes the claim that I was miss-sold PPI due to the flawed sale process as mentioned in your very own letter.
I therefore now invite you to review your decision, in the hope that you will be able and willing to do so within fourteen days. If the complaint cannot then be resolved satisfactorily, I will refer it to the FOS which I hope will not be necessary - bearing in mind the considerable cost of doing so, and the time and effort involved. "
I do not understand the relation between my savings and employee benefits and PPI being miss-sold and as I stated it was not stated clearly that it was optional in the FOS questionnaire. How should I respond to Canada square as they advise the case is now closed. I have attached a copy of the response in the attachments, appreciate and advise I can get.
I have drafted an initial response below.
"In response to my letter of complaint concerning the above accounts, your letter of 16/06/16 explained that you were unable to find evidence of mis-selling, and that you were therefore unable to refund the PPI premiums applied because I had stated in my questionnaire under D 5. That I would receive less than 3 months’ pay and in D6 that I have less than 3 months savings to cover my card payments.
It is my belief that my complaint has not been dealt with properly and fairly under the FSA rules as provided in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within PS 10/12 -. I respectfully but firmly request that you review your earlier decision not to uphold my complaint, and that you now do so in compliance with the FSA rules. I appreciate your time and attention to the task of investigating my claim, but your rejection of my complaint appears to be based solely on your own apparent judgement of my ability to pay of my debt without PPI and not on the flaws in sale process mentioned within your own letter in response to my complaint.
Despite the letter you have issued, there is no reason that refutes the claim that I was miss-sold PPI due to the flawed sale process as mentioned in your very own letter.
I therefore now invite you to review your decision, in the hope that you will be able and willing to do so within fourteen days. If the complaint cannot then be resolved satisfactorily, I will refer it to the FOS which I hope will not be necessary - bearing in mind the considerable cost of doing so, and the time and effort involved. "
Attached Files
Comment