Main site > MoneySavingExpert.com Forums > About MSE > Martin's Blogs & Appearances Discussion > '"Wish I'd been stupid enough to get PPI in ... (Page 1)

IMPORTANT! This is MoneySavingExpert's open forum - anyone can post

Please exercise caution & report any spam, illegal, offensive, racist, libellous post to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

  • Be nice to all MoneySavers
  • All the best tips go in the MoneySavingExpert weekly email

    Plus all the new guides, deals & loopholes

  • No spam/referral links
or Login with Facebook
'"Wish I'd been stupid enough to get PPI in the first place"' blog discussion
Closed Thread
Views: 2,830
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
# 1
MSE Helen
Old 07-02-2012, 11:57 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,954
Default '"Wish I'd been stupid enough to get PPI in the first place"' blog discussion

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.





Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

Last edited by MSE Helen; 07-02-2012 at 12:06 PM.
MSE Helen is offline
Report Post
# 2
SavvyS
Old 07-02-2012, 12:45 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 32
Default Do I complain?

I had opened a current account (for salary purposes) with Lloyds TSB and I was told that a PPI was compulsory. I was told that for every pound spent on my debit/credit card I would be paying some pennies towards the PPI. I did not use the credit/debit cards so effectively I have not spent anything towards the PPI. Should I still complain? Would I still be entitled to a compensation?
SavvyS is offline
Report Post
# 3
working
Old 07-02-2012, 3:27 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 187
Default

The thing is, these people who didn't read the small print (and are therefore foolish for not doing so) have been rewarded because of the interest recieved.
In most cases this puts them in a better position because they wouldn't have invested the money in an 8% account in the first place.
working is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to working For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 4
Millie Millsters
Old 07-02-2012, 6:11 PM
MoneySaving Convert
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 159
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by working View Post
The thing is, these people who didn't read the small print (and are therefore foolish for not doing so) have been rewarded because of the interest recieved.
In most cases this puts them in a better position because they wouldn't have invested the money in an 8% account in the first place.
Did you actually read Martin's blog??
Millie Millsters is offline
Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Millie Millsters For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 5
oldvicar
Old 07-02-2012, 10:02 PM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Being LIED to that policies were compulsory – they weren’t.
Yes they were ... if you wanted to be accepted for a loan.

Everybody who wasn't stoopid knew that.

MSE probably even commented at the time about the quasi-compulsory nature of these policies ... and if he didn't then where the hell was he?

Last edited by oldvicar; 07-02-2012 at 10:35 PM.
oldvicar is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to oldvicar For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 6
Percy1983
Old 08-02-2012, 12:29 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,745
Default

Sorry but I still do feel its wrong, I read small print so never ended up with PPI, with that I didn't the security of PPI.

I seems if somebody at the same time didn't read the small print then they got x years of security and at the end out it get the money back anyway.

So a the savvy person gets nothing, less savvy people gets years of free insurance.
Bought a house 30/03/2012
Got Married 04/08/2012
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/2012
Started a second business 03/08/2013

Promoted in the day job 02/01/2014
Percy1983 is offline
Report Post
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Percy1983 For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 7
MSE Martin
Old 09-02-2012, 12:06 AM
Money Saving Expert
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: MSE Towers, London
Posts: 8,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldvicar View Post
Yes they were ... if you wanted to be accepted for a loan.

Everybody who wasn't stoopid knew that.

MSE probably even commented at the time about the quasi-compulsory nature of these policies ... and if he didn't then where the hell was he?
No at the time I said "it wasn't compulsory" as it wasnt and not to go for it - as you could get far cheaper standalone policies if it was neeeded (its even if my first book I think). And that's the point. This was a lie - to be compulsory the PPI had to be within the APR. So if they said it was, or even worse, it actually was then the whole thing is a scam - which takes us back to the blog.
Martin Lewis, Money Saving Expert.
Please note, answers don't constitute financial advice, it is based on generalised journalistic research. Always ensure any decision is made with regards to your own individual circumstance.

Don't miss out on urgent MoneySaving, get my weekly e-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips.

Debt-Free Wannabee Official Nerd Club: (Honorary) Members number 000
MSE Martin is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MSE Martin For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 8
RuthnJasper
Old 09-02-2012, 12:36 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: The Land that Time Forgot, Hampshire
Posts: 2,859
Default

I have an IQ of 159, hopefully I'm not stupid... but I got PPI because I was told it was necessary.

I have yet to receive anything back; I'm still awaiting a decision from the FSA.

Of course, if it was some dodgy 'back street' place then it's sound to read the conditions extremely carefully (if you even find yourself these in the first instance) - but most of these loan and card providers are long-established businesses with a reputation to protect. Therefore you expect that their advice is correct and honest.

This doesn't mean that I'm daft, though I certainly feel stupid.
RuthnJasper is online now
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to RuthnJasper For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 9
Alpine Star
Old 10-02-2012, 9:42 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy1983 View Post
Sorry but I still do feel its wrong, I read small print so never ended up with PPI, with that I didn't the security of PPI.

I seems if somebody at the same time didn't read the small print then they got x years of security and at the end out it get the money back anyway.

So a the savvy person gets nothing, less savvy people gets years of free insurance.
They didn't get ''years of free insurance'' because, in broad terms, they either didn't know they had it or couldn't claim on it if they did - due to it being mis-sold. Get it?
Alpine Star is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Alpine Star For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 10
Percy1983
Old 10-02-2012, 10:59 AM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Manchester
Posts: 4,745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpine Star View Post
They didn't get ''years of free insurance'' because, in broad terms, they either didn't know they had it or couldn't claim on it if they did - due to it being mis-sold. Get it?
Just because they where told they had to have it when they didn't they can't claim on it?

I am pretty sure they could claim and I guess many did.

With that can people still claim it back if they made a claim? as that would be even worse.
Bought a house 30/03/2012
Got Married 04/08/2012
Officially the owner of my own business since 13/01/2012
Started a second business 03/08/2013

Promoted in the day job 02/01/2014
Percy1983 is offline
Report Post
# 11
Alpine Star
Old 10-02-2012, 11:34 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,090
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Percy1983 View Post
Just because they where told they had to have it when they didn't they can't claim on it?
Like I said in broad terms PPI was mis-sold either because it was loaded without the express knowledge of the customer or because it was unsuitable and couldn't be claimed on. Only a relatively small proportion was mis-sold as being compulsory - Competition Commission figure bear this out - and as such your ''years of free insurance'' theory largely doesn't apply. But even if it did, so what?

Perhaps those who flogged PPI should have read the FSA small print that obliges them to refund mis-sold premiums plus 8%.
Alpine Star is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Alpine Star For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 12
oldvicar
Old 12-02-2012, 7:25 AM
Serious MoneySaving Fan
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSE Martin View Post
No at the time I said "it wasn't compulsory" as it wasnt and not to go for it - as you could get far cheaper standalone policies if it was neeeded (its even if my first book I think). And that's the point. This was a lie - to be compulsory the PPI had to be within the APR. So if they said it was, or even worse, it actually was then the whole thing is a scam - which takes us back to the blog.
Fair point Martin. It was a lie and a scam, all to enable the banks to effectively charge more than the APRs they quoted.

This misrepresentation was illegal. When it was happening I knew it was wrong, you clearly knew it, and the banks must surely have known it to come up with such schemes. It's hard to think that the regulator didn't know it but chose not to do anything about it. Above all some borrowers (maybe a minority) knew it too - some may even have read your advice - but they chose to be complicit with the lie through fear that their loan application would otherwise be rejected. Let's assume that fear was genuine, and the banks did all they could to instill such fear, but could not of course go so far as to widely confirm that PPI was compulsory - because they knew that to say so meant it would need to be in the APR.

This sharp practice could have been nipped in the bud, by the regulator. Banking licences could have been threatened, or even actually revoked. Bank directors could have been guillotined (sorry, censured or even disqualified). There could have been public campaigns demanding that the banks operated properly within the law.

The question is whether the mass compensation of PPI victims is now an appropriate or even adequate response. I like Percy's views, and I believe that some (most) are being financially over-compensated. Others it seems were left desperately uninsured and giving back the premiums (plus a bit) is hardly the point. It is easier, it seems to me, to let the broad munificence of the compo brush the possible criminality of the original actions and failings of the regulator under the carpet. It does little to restore decency and honesty to banking. It almost risks encouraging future misbehaviour as a calculated financial risk.
oldvicar is offline
Report Post
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldvicar For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 13
Dave save
Old 23-02-2012, 12:16 AM
MoneySaving Stalwart
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 305
Default

Well I consider myself to be reasonably sensible, and have NEVER taken out a policy which protects payments or extends a warranty. I am still here and the goods I purchased have served me well. I think the term 'stupid' being applied to people who took out these policies is a little over the top. However, they must now admit they were conned, and as with all cons, there are usually two parties, the con artists and the gullible ones. Let's hope they learned a valuable lesson.
Dave save is offline
Report Post
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave save For This Useful Post: Show me >>
# 14
dunstonh
Old 25-02-2012, 1:13 AM
Mega Magnificent Maxi-Meticulous Uber-MoneySaving Magnate
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 75,212
Default

An IFA on another site has posted that a client that was a policeman phoned him up to ask if he has PPI as he wanted to reclaim the premiums as everyone is doing it. The IFA told him he didnt as he didnt need it and wasnt given it. A few days later the policeman complained that he wasnt [mis]sold it as it now prevents him from getting a payout.

I think the banks are being punished as they are now suffering try-it-on and fraudulent complaints and they are paying out on cases where they have no reason to pay out on. Unfortunately, more innocent parties are being drawn into it (like mortgage advisers paying 500 FOS complaint fees because claims companies refer cases to the FOS even where no PPI was put in place but the claim company still refers it anyway).

My own compliance company have said around 1/3rd of complaints currently are try-it-on/fraudulent. Another firm said that around half the complaints they get about PPI dont even have PPI.

The banks did wrong and need to deal with the wrong doing but it has also allowed very many opportunistic complaints.
I am a Financial Adviser. Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
dunstonh is online now
Report Post
# 15
pineapple
Old 25-02-2012, 12:02 PM
Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On a hillside oop North. Up in Bronte Country tha knows...
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave save View Post
Well I consider myself to be reasonably sensible, and have NEVER taken out a policy which protects payments or extends a warranty. I am still here and the goods I purchased have served me well. I think the term 'stupid' being applied to people who took out these policies is a little over the top. However, they must now admit they were conned, and as with all cons, there are usually two parties, the con artists and the gullible ones. Let's hope they learned a valuable lesson.
Forgetting the compulsory instances, I'm one of the many who refused because I realised it wasn't suitable. It's about time us sensible ones were rewarded.
A prize for not being a numpty?
pineapple is offline
Report Post
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
 
 




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 Forum Jump  

Contact Us - MoneySavingExpert.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All times are GMT. The time now is 5:11 PM.

 Forum Jump  

Free MoneySaving Email

Top deals: Week of 19 November 2014

Get all this & more in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email full of guides, vouchers and Deals

GET THIS FREE WEEKLY EMAIL Full of deals, guides & it's spam free

Latest News & Blogs

Martin's Twitter Feed

profile
  • First name - duh!
  • Fantastic, lets celebrate a great british sportsman DOUBLE world champion and with a corking last name too. #Lewis
  • Yay its baby MSE naptime, so i can turn the grand prix on to support my namesake. Go #Lewis

Cheap Travel Money

Find the best online rate for holiday cash with MSE's TravelMoneyMax.

Find the best online rate for your holiday cash with MoneySavingExpert's TravelMoneyMax.

MSE's Twitter Feed

profile
Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.
We use Skimlinks and other affiliated links in some of our boards, for some of our users.