Debts caused by PPI not being honoured

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 12:16AM

Ok thanks for you input, maybe being a lowly grease monkey means im not understanding all the ins and out of how banking works. I will have to wait to see what the ombudsmen say on the direct correlation between it

Geoff1963 · 23 June 2017 at 12:28AM

Everyone should read what the FCA Handbook says about it :
DISP App 3.7.2
Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought any payment protection contract

DISP App 3.7.3
In such cases the firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the total amount paid by the complainant in respect of the payment protection contract including historic interest where relevant (plus simple interest on that amount). If the complainant has received any rebate, for example if the customer cancelled a single premium payment protection contract before it ran full term and received a refund, the firm may deduct the value of this rebate from the amount otherwise payable to the complainant.

DISP App 3.9.2
In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penal interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender.

I ask : is a person or firm considered to owe money, if the person or firm they were required to pay, has taken it by : theft, fraud, accident, or mistake ? I have thread on it.
The only aspect of PPI mis-selling which bothers most people, is the bank mistakenly taking the customer's money.

dunstonh · 23 June 2017 at 12:29AM

So them admitting they miss sold a product and the knock on effects of that mean nothing?

The compensation is to put you in the position as if you never had the policy in the first place. i.e. voiding it. So, it was never going to pay out whether you had it or not. So, the outcome is the same.

The interest part of the refund is your compensation. There are some areas where a bank has to refund more (such as costs incurred directly as a result of the money paid to the PPI). So, a bounced payment of a PPI premium incurring a bounced fee could fall under that. However, in most cases, the PPi was not a standalone payment. So, the PPI itself wasnt bounced. It was the loan payment that was,

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 12:51AM

Thanks for that post Geoff,

DISP App 3.9.2
In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm's breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract's cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penal interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender.

This bit seems to cover my point that by them rejecting the claim when i was unemployed (as it didnt cover people employed as subcontractors) and trying to take the monthly payment continuously knowing I didnt have the income to cover it that was a direct contributor to the £3500 debt i am being chased for from 2009 when they passed the debt on and now being chased for 8years later.

Which is the tread you cover that in as I would be interested in reading it

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 12:57AM

Its not so much the PPI issue as they payed it back with the interest which im grateful for but the fact that as they refused to pay out on the policy i now have a debt that would be way smaller if they had honored it.
When they said I wasnt covered in my situation I had to open an account at another bank to have my JSA paid into as their fees, interest and charges were making my benefits disappear aster than they went in.

Geoff1963 · 23 June 2017 at 1:11AM

I only have 3 threads ; I don't want to wind up anyone by mentioning "Definition of Mortgage Arrears", so I won't.

I don't think you can sue them for not paying out, and also keep the refund of the payments. What I think you should be able to do ( it hasn't worked yet for me ), is to claim the "incidental cost".

soon added up in bounced debit fees, unauthorised overdraft fees and interest

Were they from the same firm ? So they charged you for the effort it took them, to refuse your request to borrow back, the money they'd taken off you ?

All I can give you is sympathy, so far I haven't yet made the argument stick ; nor got an official answer that it's wrong.

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 1:34AM

It was all through Lloyds Group, Lloyds TSB and Black Horse specifically. I thank you for your input. It may have been how i worded it but you seem to understand my point.

I take it you are or have been in a similar situation to me and i greatly appreciate the sympathy.

Even the solicitors who called me today on behalf of the debt collectors couldnt understand why i have the outstanding debt that Lloyds have sold on as the PPI claim being through the same banking group would have usually gone to paying off any debts within that group before I saw it (in her experience) so with the size of my payout it should have gone from 1 department to the other to cover the overdraft debt.

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 1:51AM

Just spotted this on MoneyAware

How long can a creditor chase a debt for?

Under the Limitation Act 1980 a creditor has six years to chase most unsecured unpaid debts, or twelve years for some mortgage shortfalls. This ‘limitation period’ starts from the time of your last payment or acknowledgement of the debt, not the total length of time you’ve been making payments. If a court judgment (CCJ) has been registered against you before the limitation period has passed it can be enforced at any point. There is no limitations period for a CCJ.

So considering the debt im being chased for is over 6 years old surely it falls into that? My maths might be wrong but 09 to 17 is ummmm 8

-taff · 23 June 2017 at 10:39PM

If you don't acknowledge a debt in 6 years [5 in scotalnd] it becomes statute barred and they can't pursue you through the courts. By acknowledging, that means, any form of payment towards it.

You still owe it, but after 6 years, they can't chase you for it beyond selling it on to debt collectors [ who you can also send the statute barred letter to] and it will fall off your credit file.

Personally, I think you may have a case for bounced payments on the loan if the loan were single premium, as the loan and PPI were lumped together.

See what the FOS say.

mswsussex · 23 June 2017 at 11:48PM

Thanks for the reply, I havent payed anything towards the debt since 09 (which is when Lloyds closed the account) and according to the solicitors that are working on behalf of the collection agency they last contacted me around that time too.
I have the statute barred letter waiting ready for when i recieve a letter from them with their address to send straight away.

I would imagine if I had a CCJ over this debt I would have been informed?

As for the payments yes the loan agreement and PPI from what I can remember were a single monthly DD.

Debts caused by PPI not being honoured

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free