Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Rose
    PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5
    • #1
    • 28th Feb 12, 4:40 PM
    PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5 28th Feb 12 at 4:40 PM



    Hi all, this thread is for discussing the
    PPI Reclaiming
    article.

    This is Part 5 of the discussion, as the last one was so long (read parts one, two, three and four). To discuss or ask a question about this article, click 'post reply'.

    To read about non FOS claims read this thread.
    Report and read success stories in this thread
    .

    Please remember:

    We're often quite laid back about discussion threads as this is a community after all.

    I'm afraid in the case of the PPI Reclaiming thread we're really going to have to ask you to keep the discussion on topic though, so that people can find the relevant information quickly and easily.

    If you do start making like-minded friends on here and would like to carry on chatting about what you did at the weekend/what you ate for dinner etc, that's fine, but the best way to do that is to go to our local pub the MoneySavers Arms where anything and everything is chatted about, start a thread there, then pop a link in here and suggest you all head over to there to chat.

    Thanks,

    MSE Rose
Page 503
    • Fridaydalek
    • By Fridaydalek 11th Oct 17, 4:03 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Fridaydalek
    Don't get your hopes up!
    Of course Martin puts the success stories up front - that's completely understandable. But my experience shows that - even when you know you are in the right - the ombudsman may side with the bank.

    When we first took out a mortgage in 1995 with the Halifax, we had pressure put on us to buy PPI for the loan. At the time, we didn't know it wasn't mandatory; we just thought it was a necessary extra part of getting a mortgage. We were first time buyers, and never having been through the process before, took what the in-house mortgage rep told us at face value.

    We were able to track down all the relevant bank statements etc and made a claim this year. We used Resolver and set out our claim. The Halifax responded with a 30 minute phone call to take down all the details, and then a couple of weeks later sent us a report as to why they were not accepting it.

    They glossed over the fact that we were told it was compulsory, and instead focused on our financial situation at the time, and told us that as I couldn't remember just how big my savings were in 1995 (!) nor what sickness benefits my then employer offered, I was "eligible" for PPI, and therefore not mis-sold it. The sales pressure didn't come into it.

    I went to the ombudsman and told them the Halifax had ignored the basis of my claim, and instead focused on other areas. I got asked the same questions by the ombudsman! "What sickness benefit did you have at the time, what were your savings?"

    The ombudsman told us they had "no evidence" that we were pressurised at the time of the mortgage meeting. Well, the evidence is that I was there and can tell them what happened. But of course I can't prove it - funnily enough, I didn't think to record the conversation and keep it for 22 years.

    And of course, you could look at it that there's "no evidence" that there wasn't high pressure sales, so the shoe's on the other foot. But the ombudsman found in favour of the Halifax.

    So here's my advice: put a claim in by all means, but don't assume you'll get anywhere even if you have paperwork and you know you're in the right.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th Oct 17, 4:25 PM
    • 89,852 Posts
    • 55,452 Thanks
    dunstonh
    But my experience shows that - even when you know you are in the right - the ombudsman may side with the bank.
    How about the majority of cases where the FOS side with the consumer?
    Broadly speaking, the FOS are slightly consumer biased.

    When we first took out a mortgage in 1995 with the Halifax, we had pressure put on us to buy PPI for the loan.
    Sales pressure is allowed. So, nothing wrong there.

    At the time, we didn't know it wasn't mandatory;
    You have just contradicted yourself. If it was mandatory there would be no pressure put on you to buy it.
    They glossed over the fact that we were told it was compulsory,
    Did you provide any evidence to back up your allegation?

    and told us that as I couldn't remember just how big my savings were in 1995 (!) nor what sickness benefits my then employer offered, I was "eligible" for PPI, and therefore not mis-sold it. The sales pressure didn't come into it.
    First time buyer, probably using most of what you had on the property purchase. Sounds like a good reason to have MPPI. Contradictions on sales process (one minute told to you have it, next minute pressurised). Seems the right decision was made.

    Well, the evidence is that I was there and can tell them what happened. But of course I can't prove it - funnily enough, I didn't think to record the conversation and keep it for 22 years.
    How do they know you are telling the truth. Especially as you are inconsistent. Every fraudulent/try-it-on complaint says the same thing as you. Its an automatic complaint reason for most claims companies to use in their template whether it happened or not.

    And of course, you could look at it that there's "no evidence" that there wasn't high pressure sales, so the shoe's on the other foot. But the ombudsman found in favour of the Halifax.
    Which is the basis of English law.
    • Fridaydalek
    • By Fridaydalek 12th Oct 17, 7:49 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Fridaydalek
    Hi @dunstonh

    With all the success stories in Martin's newsletter , I thought my experience might be helpful for those with high hopes, whose efforts could eventually lead to nowt.

    But as, according to you post, I'm a potential liar and fraudster, I guess they're better off ignoring me.

    Thanks for your constructive input
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 12th Oct 17, 8:28 AM
    • 31 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BooJewels
    @Fridaydalek: I think some of the disappointment with unsuccessful PPI customers comes down to expectations, which are fueled by starting off using the wrong terminology, which in itself, tends to cause misunderstanding of the situation.

    You yourself posted that you were making 'a claim'. The process is actually making 'a complaint' and for a complaint to be upheld, the customer has to have specific grounds for complaint and be able to substantiate it. It sounds like in your case, it was your word against the banks, meaning you were on shaky ground from the offset.

    When I put in my complaint - I had a lot of detail - all of the paperwork, the date and time of the appointment, the business card of the lady we saw, my own hand written notes and I can remember the weather and what she was wearing. We were successful. At the same time, the same bank as you said that we had other PPI products, some going back to the mid-90s and did I also want to file complaints about those. I asked them to look at one, but I knew I had lost the paperwork in a flood, so felt that maybe it wasn't fair to proceed. They said they'd look at it and I felt that I had very shaky details on which to substantiate a complaint, so didn't expect anything to come of it. They rung me four or five times about that one and whilst I was always totally honest about how little I could support the complaint, they found in my favour and paid out - so the Halifax do also pay out where they seemingly do find grounds at their end.
    Last edited by BooJewels; 12-10-2017 at 8:30 AM. Reason: Didn't make sense
    • Fridaydalek
    • By Fridaydalek 12th Oct 17, 8:49 AM
    • 10 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Fridaydalek
    @Fridaydalek: I think some of the disappointment with unsuccessful PPI customers comes down to expectations..
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    Thanks, Boo - exactly what I was hoping to address with my post!
    I provided the detail as background, so others in similar situation wouldn't get their hopes up with their complaint (using right terminology there )

    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 12th Oct 17, 2:28 PM
    • 19,510 Posts
    • 9,606 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I'm a potential liar and fraudster, I guess they're better off ignoring me.
    Originally posted by Fridaydalek
    Nobody accused you of such.

    The point is that your "complaint" was contradictory and so unlikely to be upheld from the off. Do you really not see that you could hardly have been "pressured" into taking PPI if you believed it was compulsory?

    Basically, you provided a weak complaint and so , in the absence of any other evidence of wrong doing, you were rejected both by the bank and then the Ombudsman.

    Many many others have provided equally weak complaints and been successful because the bank has found other faults with the sales as part of their investigations.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 12th Oct 17, 5:31 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    BooJewels
    Many many others have provided equally weak complaints and been successful because the bank has found other faults with the sales as part of their investigations.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    As I suggested in my earlier post, I think this is what happened in my case. One account dated back to 1997 and my own argument was very weak and I repeatedly told them as much and they rang many times asking detailed questions that often I couldn't answer, but they did settle - but it took quite some time.

    It was only a modest sum initially, but as it had been on a secured loan, that we'd daisy chained into new loans over about 15 years, I got a very complex compound interest payment as that original figure progressed through the various subsequent loans.

    I have always assumed that they found something in the paperwork at the time (I know the chap that set it up at the bank was very nervous and inexperienced and had to keep asking for help) that wouldn't withstand scrutiny if I'd appealed the outcome. As it happens, I wouldn't have done, as my own argument was weak and I had no expectation of a positive outcome - the fact that I got one was very much a bonus.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,681Posts Today

8,513Users online

Martin's Twitter