Egg PPI/CRP and Plevin reply

[Eggcetera]

Wondered if anyone could offer me some advice.

Back in 2013 I (stupidly) went through a claims management company to try and claim the PPI/CRP on my egg credit card which I took out online in 2001.

The claims company were useless when they actually had to do some work (thy robbed me with my bank loan PPI) and fobbed me off with incorrect information as to why my claim was rejected. Canada Square advised me otherwise at the time although I have since found out that these are generic letters that they have sent to almost anyone who complained to them.

I have decided to now pursue this myself as I know that I did not agree to the PPI. I am going to request a SAR, but in the meantime I seem to have received yet another of Canada Square's generic replies where they state that they are now waiting for the finalised FCA rules and regulations to do with the Plevin case before they will look at any claims although I am aware that they do not need to wait for this.

I strongly believe I was mis-sold. the PPI/CRP. It was an online application, I was on maternity leave. I advised them that it must have been a pre-ticked 'opt-out' box as part of the application as I would not have knowingly taken it, I also advised them that they did not give my case merit by sending the generic reply.

Any advice on how I can word a reply letter back to them stating that I would prefer they looked at my case now rather than wait for the final FSA guidelines (ie more delaying tactics).

Has anyone actually been successful in getting their PPI back from egg who carried out an on line application?

Thank you.

[charitynjw]

Re: Egg PPI/CRP and Plevin reply

The FCA has also made final rules and guidance related to how firms should handle complaints in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (Plevin). The Plevin decision means that consumers may have new grounds to complain about PPI regarding the amount of money that the providers received for the sale if the failure to disclose that commission made the relationship unfair.

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-re...ppi-complaints
Press Releases Published: 02/03/2017 Last updated: 02/03/2017

[Eggcetera]

Re: Egg PPI/CRP and Plevin reply

https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-re...ppi-complaints
Press Releases Published: 02/03/2017 Last updated: 02/03/2017

Thank you. I will write back to them (they just said sometime in 2017), looks like it was yet another generic reply.

[Eggcetera]

Re: Egg PPI/CRP and Plevin reply

Hi Again, I am new to doing this my self and would appreciate it if anyone more knowledgeable than me, could maybe have a look over my reply to Canada Square to see if it makes sense before I send it, or if there is anything I could add?. Really don't want to go down the FOS route unless this is my last option.

Thank you for your letter outlining that you are now awaiting the ruling from the FCA with regards to guidance and standards relating to the Plevin case.

I have been following updates from the FCA with regards to this and believe they have already made final rules and guidance (CP16/20) related to how firms should handle complaints in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Plevin vParagon Personal Finance Ltd (Plevin).

You mention that I have not offered any further information with regards to my original complaint which was carried out by a wholly inadequate claims management company who did not wish to work to earn their extortionate fees.

As already advised, since my original complaint I have discovered that Canada Square Operations have sent the same generic responses to all parties complaining about the mis-selling of PPI on their Egg credit card and loan accounts. This alone shows that Canada Square Operations did not fully investigate each individual case appropriately or on its own merit which is against FCA regulations.The letter I have just received from you also indicates that this is also a generic reply as my complaint does, in my opinion, state new information.

As stated the PPI that I was mis-sold was a pre-ticked box on the online application and was unable to progress further with the application, this was a known tactic that EGG used until around 2007 and shows that PPI was a forced part of the application process. I also believe that this was again a forced part of the credit agreement (where it did not state that this was an optional addition to the credit card). As the amount of PPI/CRP charged was added to the balance of the account, interest was added to the PPI/CRP which was also not agreed to. I was on maternity leave at the time and my circumstances meant that I was not eligible for any ‘benefits’ of PPI/CRP but had to take it out in order to obtain the credit card.

In light that the FCA has already issued their guidelines, your assistance with reviewing my case would be appreciated.

Thank you