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 Wendy
    • By Former MSE Wendy 1st Apr 14, 8:41 PM
    • 868Posts
    • 1,782Thanks
    Former MSE Wendy
    Have you been underpaid for your PPI reclaim?
    • #1
    • 1st Apr 14, 8:41 PM
    Have you been underpaid for your PPI reclaim? 1st Apr 14 at 8:41 PM
    Hi all

    We've just added a section to our PPI guide about Comparative redress - where some people have only had partial refunds, because lenders treated them as if they'd been sold the wrong type of PPI rather than completely mis-sold PPI.

    Whether you received your offer in the last week or over a year ago, if you disagree you would have bought this different PPI it's NOT compulsory for you to accept your bank's decision.

    Let us know below if you're affected. And if you contacted your bank about it, how did you get on.

    Thanks and good luck, MSE Wendy
    Last edited by Former MSE Wendy; 02-04-2014 at 1:17 PM.
Page 1
  • Stupid Question
    • #2
    • 1st Apr 14, 11:27 PM
    • #2
    • 1st Apr 14, 11:27 PM
    This is a ridiculous non story about a perfectly legitimate approach to redress.

    I'd expect better from MSE, this is a story being pushed by a CMC Trade Organisation, why are you giving it publicity?

    The banks offer is final, if you disagree go to FOS.

    If you've already accepted it you cannot go back and 'reclaim your reclaim'
    My username refers to my enthusiasm for 'asking the stupid question' I don't think you're stupid!
    • Brokerwise
    • By Brokerwise 2nd Apr 14, 8:24 AM
    • 164 Posts
    • 67 Thanks
    Brokerwise
    • #3
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:24 AM
    • #3
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:24 AM
    Hi all

    We've just added a section to our PPI guide about Comparative redress - where some people have only had partial refunds, because lenders treated them as if they'd been sold the wrong type of PPI rather than completely mis-sold PPI.

    Whether you received your offer in the last week or over a year ago, if you disagree you would have bought this different PPI it's NOT compulsory for you to accept your bank's decision.

    Let us know below if you're affected. And if you contacted your bank about it, how did you get on.

    Thanks and luck, MSE Wendy
    Originally posted by MSE Wendy
    Complete and utter nonsense
    • Brokerwise
    • By Brokerwise 2nd Apr 14, 8:29 AM
    • 164 Posts
    • 67 Thanks
    Brokerwise
    • #4
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:29 AM
    • #4
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:29 AM
    This is a ridiculous non story about a perfectly legitimate approach to redress.

    I'd expect better from MSE, this is a story being pushed by a CMC Trade Organisation, why are you giving it publicity?

    The banks offer is final, if you disagree go to FOS.

    If you've already accepted it you cannot go back and 'reclaim your reclaim'
    Originally posted by Stupid Question
    CMC's trying to re flog the dying horse as they have no other business model
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 2nd Apr 14, 8:46 AM
    • 87,314 Posts
    • 52,491 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #5
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:46 AM
    • #5
    • 2nd Apr 14, 8:46 AM
    A couple of the media outlets reported something similar last week. They got it completely wrong in how they reported it. MSE seems to have fallen for it to.

    The comparative redress method would not be used on upheld complaints. It is used on rejected complaints but still results in some redress due to the adjustment from single to regular. It can result in more people getting redress. Not less.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). 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.
  • roxorx
    • #6
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:20 PM
    • #6
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:20 PM
    My claim was settled last week with the Royal Bank of Scotland, they offered me an amount minus the monthly PPI cover amount they thought I would take. They accepted in writing that I had been miss-sold. After much reading up on here and on the FSA's website it appeared that this was a valid reason for them to use and they quoted the guidelines almost word for word.


    I went back and argued the settlement figure as I would've had cover in other ways. They said that it was still in line with their guidelines, and I chose to accept their offer. It didn't seem worthwhile going to the Ombudsman for something that is in line with what they say.


    The article that led me here got my hopes up, but reading the above comments it sounds like it was settled in a correct manner?
  • roxorx
    • #7
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:26 PM
    • #7
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:26 PM
    A couple of the media outlets reported something similar last week. They got it completely wrong in how they reported it. MSE seems to have fallen for it to.

    The comparative redress method would not be used on upheld complaints. It is used on rejected complaints but still results in some redress due to the adjustment from single to regular. It can result in more people getting redress. Not less.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    My bank upheld my complaint and did use comparative redress. Would this mean they have not acted correctly?
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 2nd Apr 14, 1:34 PM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 8,604 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #8
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:34 PM
    • #8
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:34 PM
    The article that led me here got my hopes up, but reading the above comments it sounds like it was settled in a correct manner?
    Originally posted by roxorx
    You can dispute any offer of redress and refer your complaint to the Ombudsman if you remain dissatisfied. However, there is little point in doing this if the correct procedure has been followed because FOS is unlikely to change this.

    They accepted in writing that I had been miss-sold.
    Originally posted by roxorx
    Read their letter again, I doubt you'll find anything which actually states that you were mis-sold or that they accept this to be the case. They will have simply offered to redress your complaint.
    My bank upheld my complaint and did use comparative redress. Would this mean they have not acted correctly?
    Originally posted by roxorx
    No, it means they upheld your complaint insofar as they agreed that you wouldn't have taken a single premium policy which attracted extra interest.
    So it's only been upheld in part.

    Going to the Ombudsman will mean that you get no redress for about eighteen months, with very likely the same outcome!
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 2nd Apr 14, 1:39 PM
    • 87,314 Posts
    • 52,491 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:39 PM
    • #9
    • 2nd Apr 14, 1:39 PM
    Here is the FOS guide on the subject:

    http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/PPI-comparative-redress.pdf

    My bank upheld my complaint and did use comparative redress. Would this mean they have not acted correctly?
    .

    If they uphold your complaint as mis-sold as the PPI was unsuitable or you were ineligible or similar to that then they should not use this method. If they are upholding the complaint as not being mis-sold but set up incorrectly then they should use this method.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). 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.
  • roxorx
    Thank you both, I'll go back through their 6 page letter tonight and check the exact wording. Many thanks.
    • EssexMark
    • By EssexMark 27th Jun 14, 5:55 PM
    • 7 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    EssexMark
    I have to say I am quite dismayed at the negativity around this, so thought I would report back my success to you.

    Way back before the banks had caved in, I wrote to Lloyds TSB with paperwork that I could find about recent loans I had had with them (I had loans with Lloyds TSB stretching back over many years - always refinancing them..). I reckoned they owed me about £4k. They wrote back and denied all responsibility, but rather bizarrely still offered me £4k anyway, which I was obviously very pleased with. This was c. 2009.

    Then, last year, they wrote to me again (without prompting) about all the other loans I had had with them. I completed their questionnaire, and got back a further almost £12k. You could have knocked me down with a feather.

    Anyway, I was over the moon, as you can imagine, until I read about the comparative redress argument. So I re-checked my paperwork, and, sure enough, Lloyds had used this on some, but not all, of my loans. So, despite reading the negative comments here, I wrote again. I reckoned that they owed me a further £1.8k.

    This week I received a letter, and some cheques.

    They have offered me a further £5,800.

    So don't anyone tell me that this doesn't work, and it's not worth doing, and it's all a non-story - £5.8k says it isn't.

    That's almost £22k reclaimed from Lloyds, so I'd like to offer my sincerest thanks to Martin and his team for doing such a wonderful job in bringing these dreadful bank practices to our attention and in telling us how to claim for ourselves without going through some dodgy third party who would cream off all the profits.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 27th Jun 14, 8:17 PM
    • 87,314 Posts
    • 52,491 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I have to say I am quite dismayed at the negativity around this, so thought I would report back my success to you.
    Your success is not related to the subject of this thread.

    So don't anyone tell me that this doesn't work, and it's not worth doing, and it's all a non-story - £5.8k says it isn't.
    £5.8k received but not because of the info on this thread.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). 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.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 28th Jun 14, 8:32 AM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 4,436 Thanks
    -taff
    Your success is not related to the subject of this thread..
    Originally posted by dunstonh

    It kind of is....he wrote to them regarding comparative redress instead of full redess and got that upheld.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 28th Jun 14, 10:11 AM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 8,604 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    until I read about the comparative redress argument. So I re-checked my paperwork, and, sure enough, Lloyds had used this on some, but not all, of my loans. So, despite reading the negative comments here, I wrote again.
    They have offered me a further £5,800.
    Originally posted by EssexMark
    Your success is not related to the subject of this thread.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Can you explain exactly why you feel this is not the case, Dunstonh?

    The OP claims that he went back to the Bank complaining about Comparative Redress and that his complaint was upheld.

    How is that not related to the subject of this thread?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 28th Jun 14, 11:09 AM
    • 87,314 Posts
    • 52,491 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I read it, and forgive me if I have missed a bit, that he went back to them and they paid out more. However, there was no mention of comparative redress being used in the original redress payments. Indeed, the size of the redress suggests it was not.

    This thread may have promoted further contact that resulted in another payment but the actual subject matter of comparative redress does not appear to be the reason for the extra payment.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). 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.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 28th Jun 14, 5:27 PM
    • 7,021 Posts
    • 4,436 Thanks
    -taff
    Anyway, I was over the moon, as you can imagine, until I read about the comparative redress argument. So I re-checked my paperwork, and, sure enough, Lloyds had used this on some, but not all, of my loans. So, despite reading the negative comments here, I wrote again. I reckoned that they owed me a further £1.8k.

    This week I received a letter, and some cheques.

    They have offered me a further £5,800.
    Originally posted by EssexMark


    Although, I'm not sure where the negative comment thing comes from....
  • Ms Manchester
    PPI Comparative Redress
    I was paid out on 3 PPI loans last year by Lloyds who dealt with my claim quite quickly and I had the cheques within 8 weeks of sending my form in.

    After seeing the article on comparative redress I sent another form in June this year and was advised I would have a decision by 13 August -approx 6 weeks. They acknowledged that this was a re-assessment claim. Despite several telephone calls and letters I have still not had a decision. For the last 4 weeks they keep telling me the same thing that my case has been escalated and awaiting a final decision. They are now 6 weeks over their standard deadline time to give a decision.

    They have actively encouraged me to put a complaint to the FOS which I have now done. It may be that because the bank has split - Lloyds and TSB since last year which is causing more delays but they seem to be using delaying tactics which makes me believe I am due for more money and they are just hoping I will go away!. Has anyone else put a re-assessment claim in?

    Can anyone offer any advice?

    I will keep you posted.

    Ms Manchester
    • Insider101
    • By Insider101 26th Sep 14, 10:02 PM
    • 1,044 Posts
    • 594 Thanks
    Insider101
    I was paid out on 3 PPI loans last year by Lloyds who dealt with my claim quite quickly and I had the cheques within 8 weeks of sending my form in.

    After seeing the article on comparative redress I sent another form in June this year and was advised I would have a decision by 13 August -approx 6 weeks. They acknowledged that this was a re-assessment claim. Despite several telephone calls and letters I have still not had a decision. For the last 4 weeks they keep telling me the same thing that my case has been escalated and awaiting a final decision. They are now 6 weeks over their standard deadline time to give a decision.

    They have actively encouraged me to put a complaint to the FOS which I have now done. It may be that because the bank has split - Lloyds and TSB since last year which is causing more delays but they seem to be using delaying tactics which makes me believe I am due for more money and they are just hoping I will go away!. Has anyone else put a re-assessment claim in?

    Can anyone offer any advice?

    I will keep you posted.

    Ms Manchester
    Originally posted by Ms Manchester
    See my post on the "reassessment of PPI claims" thread. To which I will add, I hadn't realised yours was a comparative redress case. But the situation is that it is not black and white. If they have offered you comparative redress then they will have explained why they were not offering you full. If you disagreed then the time to dispute it would have been then, giving your reasons for doing so. If you returned an acceptance form then it would have been an acceptance of their offer as a full and final settlement. There is therefore on the face of it little point in going back now and disagreeing with the comparative redress decision.

    That said, Lloyds have had some bad press over their use of comparative redress, so they may rereview the matter voluntarily. But there isn't anything you can do to force them I am afraid.

    As for the thing about going to FOS, most of the big banks (and FOS itself) use call centre staff who are not trained financial services professionals. This is their default answer to everything if you are not happy and they don't know what to do to help you. Unfortunately, it is not an option in this instance.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 27th Sep 14, 12:20 AM
    • 18,367 Posts
    • 8,604 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude

    After seeing the article on comparative redress I sent another form in June this year
    Originally posted by Ms Manchester
    You know asking the same question every couple of days is not going to get you a different answer no matter who responds!

    You gave no impression in your other posts that you asked for a re-assessment of your PPI redress on the basis that you were offered and accepted Comparative Redress, but the answer is fundamentally the same.

    There is no set regulatory period for "re-assessment" requests. You have already accepted the original "full and final" redress offer and the Bank are under no obligation to respond within a set period to your request that they re-calculate your redress.

    Unless the Bank agree in writing FOS will not be able to accept your "complaint" referral.

    That does not mean you will definitely fail in your quest for more money from the Bank, but your sense of entitlement is a little off-base if you believe you can somehow get the Ombudsman to force the Bank's hand in this circumstance.
    • addedvaluebob
    • By addedvaluebob 27th Sep 14, 7:43 AM
    • 461 Posts
    • 103 Thanks
    addedvaluebob
    Ignore this latest posting and wait for the Lloyds response. There is little point referring to FOS even if a case has gone over the 8 week deadline, this is one of the problems with the system that people send it off after 57 days and FOS will just refer back to the seller to find out what is happening.

    There is no delaying tactic they are understaffed and incompetent, to have a delaying tactic you need to have an overall plan and most/all of the banks etc just chug through the cases day by day and tick them off on the spreadsheet. All that stuff about 'full and final' 'no obligation' and 'in writing' just ignore it. You have asked for the case to be re-assessed, they are re-assessing it because they have been caught fiddling with the figures
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

3,976Posts Today

5,493Users online

Martin's Twitter