Virgin/MBNA PPI

[Bill-K]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

Glad we got him in the end, guys. It's an Irish name, and our Di is Welsh !!! Me - I'm an Englishman living in Jockland !!!

Let's hope you get a result, Cookie !!!

[cookie2112]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

Thanks Bill! Both Wales and Scotland are beautiful

[MattyA]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

I know its Ian Docherty CEO, will check if i can find his official email addy in case of any dots in between his name lol x

For sure it is Ian ODoherty

ian.odoherty@bankofamerica.com

Or at least it was.

I mithered him to death over my claims a couple of years ago - He even rang me back on my mobile one saturday morning - still short changed me though.....lol

[cookie2112]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

Firstly, a massive apology for my long absence, it's a long and not great story but basically my computer died, then I was ill and during this my poorly MIL has been threatening suicide, I have been dealing with carers, along with the usual pressures of work etc has meant that I haven't been online for ages and I hope I am still welcome!

In the last few weeks there have been some updates with both my threads and once again I would be grateful for any assistance, I will post the letters up here later as I am aware that I really need to get some responses sorted.

The outline for the letter regarding this thread, is that MBNA have come back with a 'No' letter, saying again that I ticked the box and therefore I chose it and was not sold it, I would love to be able to throw this back at them and as always would be grateful for some advice.

[IF]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

Hi Cookie, as I said on your other thread, I'm so sorry you've had such a bad month and send more hugs.

Hopefully someone will advice you further on your PPI post

Best wishes
IF

[Bill-K]

Re: Virgin/MBNA PPI

Hi Cookie, and I am also sorry to hear of your recent troubles. I hope both you and your MIL come through it all OK. I'm not familiar with your claim, but MBNA seem to have a total contempt for both the FCA & FOS - and also for their unfortunate customers. Just as an 'instant' reply to your post as I read it - MBNA (and most other lenders) must adhere to the FCA rules, but MBNA are getting quite a name for themselves for ignoring the FCA & FOS these days. Here are some of the FCA rules regarding PPI complaints are in the Handbook on PPI Redress contained within FSA Policy Statement PS10/12, which you might like to quote:

DISP APP 3.2.2 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 the complaint. This is likely to require an approach to complaint handling that seeks to clarify the nature of the complaint.
DISP APP 3.3.1 Where a complaint is made, the firm should assess the complaint fairly, giving appropriate weight and balanced consideration to all available evidence, including what the complainant says and other information about the sale that the firm identifies. The firm is not expected automatically to assume that there has been a breach or failing.
DISP APP 3.3.2 The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy's terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale.
DISP 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. 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 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 firm should 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 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 3.3.9 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).

Also, PS10/12 Section 4.8 states: In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.

In this case, it seems that DISP APP 3.3.5 above is blatantly being flouted - and therefore the other rules listed above have also been broken. For the CEO's office to openly support this is really quite nasty, IMO. It may be worth replying to the effect that the CEO himself (O'Doherty) is personally responsible for the actions of his office, and is therefore personally guilty of breaking the FCA rules. As CEO, he cannot plead ignorance as a defence. I prefer to exhaust all possibilities with the CEO's office before referring it to the FOS - but by all means tell them they have 7 days to reconsider, before you refer the claim to the FOS - and their clear ignorance of the PPI Redress rules (whether by negligence or intention - either is unforgiveable for the CEO) to the FCA - who are both already investigating other aspects of MBNA's PPI Redress.

If the app. form was pre-ticked, then hopefully this will be clear on your copy. If you were not made aware of this when you signed the form, then I believe the onus is upon MBNA to prove otherwise. They would probably point out that the general practice at the time would involve informing you of this, and provide copies of standard documentation to back this up. But this is not conclusive proof, and given MBNA's previous record of deceiving both their customers and the regulators - then I don't think they should be able to rely on this. I would throw DISP APP 3.3.9 at them if they try this.