MSE News: 'I got £82,000 PPI back'

Options
245678

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Options
    timmybear wrote: »
    If the story is true...
    Why would the story not be true? Do we have any reason to disbelieve it?
    As others have said, it's the 8% interest which has resulted in this mammoth payout-not only his PPI redress.
    He must have been paying without question for years, poor sap!
    Pity he felt he needed a Claims Handler.
  • magpiecottage
    magpiecottage Posts: 9,241 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    andypandy1 wrote: »
    I fail to understand how anybody can pay out such a large sum of money and not ask the appropriate questions. Surely this man needs to accept some of the responsibility.

    If you get an unrecognised item on your statement then the onus should be on you to query it there and then, not let it fester.

    With that in mind, I cannot see why Barclaycard did not just timebar him.
  • manama
    manama Posts: 81 Forumite
    Options
    Fab news. Love some good news, and in my county....yay
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Options
    magpiecottage wrote: »
    I cannot see why Barclaycard did not just timebar him.
    How do you know they didn't use this as a reason to reject his complaint originally ?
    Could it be they finally paid out because he had continued to pay unknowingly for so long to a single credit card company?
    Could it not also be Barclay's paid because the FOS found in his favour after several rejections by the Bank?
  • timmybear
    timmybear Posts: 122 Forumite
    Options
    Moneyineptitude wrote: »
    Why would the story not be true?.

    Because very often the 'truth' makes for very poor news. £82000 sounds a lot more exciting than £82, as an example.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Options
    timmybear wrote: »
    Because very often the 'truth' makes for very poor news. £82000 sounds a lot more exciting than £82, as an example.
    If I thought this site was as unreliable as you suggest it might be, I don't think I'd be posting on it's forum or visiting it so often.
    This is not Fox News!:money:
  • timmybear
    timmybear Posts: 122 Forumite
    Options
    Moneyineptitude wrote: »
    If I thought this site was as unreliable as you suggest it might be, I don't think I'd be posting on it's forum or visiting it so often.
    This is not Fox News!:money:
    Well you are entitled to feel that way of course :beer:
  • VT82
    VT82 Posts: 1,079 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    I don't understand why anyone would get their story and picture in the public domain, just for 15 seconds of fame, when it involves admitting you were:

    - ignorant enough about your finances to not notice peeing £82k up the wall

    - disinterested/lazy/craven enough to pay a solicitor to write a letter, instead of following it through yourself, that ended up costing you £25k

    But then I don't get why lottery winners go public either.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    edited 21 March 2012 at 12:28AM
    Options
    VT82 wrote: »
    - disinterested/lazy/craven enough to pay a solicitor to write a letter, instead of following it through yourself, that ended up costing you £25k
    I think you'll find it was a Claims Handler who posted his letter. No court case was involved.
    Effectively, this bloke was ripped off twice- firstly over several decades by his Bank and secondly by a ruinously expensive claim company.
    Remember also that he didn't actually pay £82,000 in PPI. It's the 8% interest over such a long period that has resulted in his enormous payout.
  • timmybear
    timmybear Posts: 122 Forumite
    Options
    Moneyineptitude wrote: »
    I think you'll find it was a Claims Handler who posted his letter. No court case was involved.
    Effectively, this bloke was ripped off twice- firstly over several decades by his Bank and secondly by a ruinously expensive claim company.

    That is one way of looking at it, yes. The way I see it, if he agreed to giving the claims company that % share then that's his bad luck. To get 'ripped off', one generally has to be taken advantage of without consent.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards