Natwest PPI fight

[unserrer]

Hello

 

I apologise for the length of this post. It outlines my issue and has text from both the Ombudsman and Natwest's reply. I am hoping someone can advise me of the content of a reply to the Ombudsman in order to support my case.

 

I took out a Natwest CC in 1997 and associated PPI. At the time, I had unemployment, sickness and accident insurance already in place with another party which would have covered me.

 

I contacted Natwest who turned down my claim. I contacted the Ombudsman who at the end of April basically said they were recommending the complaint is upheld citing the fact that I already had unemployment insurance to cover me.

 

"From the information I have gathered, I do not think Natwest advised Mr X to buy the PPI policy. However, Natwest still had a duty to give Mr X the information he needed to decide whether to take out the policy - and to present it in a way that was clear, fair and not misleading. It was also the duty of Natwest to draw the main features of the policy to Mr X's attention.

 

I have looked at all the information I have from the sale and I do not think Natwest made the policy's cost and benefits clear enough. Having taken his circumstances into account, I do not think Mr X would have thought the policy was good value for him if Natwest had done so - and I do not think he would still have taken it out in that case".

 

Natwest has since responded to the Ombudsman who has sent me a copy advising me they are going to look at this further. Natwest sent the following:

 

Thank you for your letter dated 25 April 2013. The Bank is naturally disappointed

that the Service is minded to uphold this complaint and disagrees with this decision

for the reasons stated below. -

 

In the assessment letter the Service has concluded that the case should be upheld

as the Bank "did not make the policy's cost and benefits clear enough to Mr X.

This case relates to a NatWest credit card and PPI sale. The application form was

signed on 2 July 1997 and the credit card account was opened on 14 August 1997.

The PPl start date was 15 August 1997. We are unable to confirm the sales channel

in this instance but having viewed the application form and with the delay between

signature and start date, it could be postal or branch.

 

l note that we did not previously have the customer's Application Form available but

this has now been received and I have attached an electronic copy for your

reference. There is also a blank application in the Terms & Conditions enclosed

which is exactly the same format as the customer copy and l am sending it

specifically for you to see the wording clearly as the customer copy is quite faint.

The Application Form has a separate Credit Card Repayment Protector box that has

to be signed by the customer to take out the cover. It states “ 5.Credit Card

Repayment Protector. We recommend that your monthly credit card repayments are

protected in the event of an accident, illness, involuntary unemploymentor death.

Credit Card Repayment Protector is available to the Principal Cardholder only, aged v

- between 18 and 64 andpermanently resident in the UK who has been in permanent

paid employment for at least 16 hours per week for the last6 months. Cover“

automatically ceases at age 65. The information on this form will be used by National

Westminster Insurance Services Ltd to obtain a Certificate of Insurance from Sun

Alliance. Please sign one of the signature boxes below”.

 

YES, I would like to take advantage of the peace of mind offered by CCRP (Please

read the Credit Card Repayment Protector Your Cover explained section in the

Cards brochure or enclosed literature before you decide)

Or

NO l do not require CCRP and understand that l will be responsible for making my

repayments each month if l am unable to work.

This clearly shows the policy was an optional insurance and a separate product to

the credit card. Mr X has signed to confirm YES he wishes to take the

insurance.

 

The Terms and Conditions were provided within the credit card application pack for

the customer to read and consider ahead of making his selections. These Terms and

Conditions contained the Key Features and Exclusions of the policy. The Your Cover

Explained section confirmed Who could have the policy, How much it cost, How it

worked, What was not covered, How to Apply and ls this cover right for you?.

The How to Apply section of the Terms & Conditions states “ Don’t miss the

opportunity of applying for Credit Card Repayment Protector by signing Section 5 of

the Application Form if you require cover. Please see the ‘What is not covered

section‘ before you decide. Cover begins as soon as your Certificate of insurance is

issued. This will be sent to you separately, shortly after your application has been ‘

accepted.

 

The ls this Cover Right for You? section explains that the customer should read the

full terms and conditions to ensure the cover is suitable for their requirements. it also

confirms how they can cancel within 14 days if not completely satisfied.

The documentation provided was clear, fair and not misleading. Mr X had

sufficient information regarding the policy costs and benefits to enable him to make

an informed choice as to whether or not to take out the policy . lnfact, I can not see

how the cost and benefits of the policy could have been made any clearer to Mr X .

 

For the reasons outlined above, the Bank believes that this case should not be

upheld and l look forward to receiving your further response in due course.

[dx100uk]

doesn't mean to say that in a closed room or a sales desk you were not told you HAD to have it by the advisor.

 

neither does it clarify the fact that the rep prob filled in the form and said 'sign here, here. etc etc.

 

the FCA [FSA] PPI guidelines clearly state this should not be an excuse to withhold payment on a reclaims action.

 

there are many successes here regarding the same issue.

 

dx

[unserrer]

Thanks for taking the time to reply. The ombudsman reply says quite explicitly ""From the information I have gathered, I do not think Natwest advised Mr X to buy the PPI policy.". I'm not sure I should try and change their view on this. Rather I want to shore up the case in the direction the Ombudsman is already going.

[dx100uk]

NatWest are relying upon pure speculation that there processes were perfect.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?378821-LloydsTSB-Loan-PPi&p=4120422&highlight=ppi+success#post4120422

 

dx

[unserrer]

Thanks DK. How do I articulate that though? I'm not sure what I respond to the Ombudsman. Do I say just because they say it is so does not mean that is the reality?

[dx100uk]

exactly.

 

use the letter in that linked thread to bolster up yours and the fos's opinion that they did not carry out a peoper review.

 

what NatWest are saying is mere speculation, HE was not there at the time.

 

I suspect you were button holed by a rep at a supermarket or airport or carpark or till somewhere.

 

whatout knowing what letters / method you use

to start your complant we cant really comment

 

did you use the FOS CQ?

 

or just put in a speculative claim letter?

 

dx

[Andybars]

I would also add in your submission to FOS that he application form states that NatWest recommended the product "We recommend that your monthly credit card repayments are protected", without making any assessment of your existing cover or your needs. I would also note that as they cannot even confirm the sales channel, any suggestion that their procedures were followed is pure comjecture