PPI Reclaiming discussion Part III

trini

Hello all,

Just wondered if I might be able to get some help please. I am right in thinking that at some point on this forum I saw a post with a link attached confirming that PPI can not be sold to someone who is only in the country on a working visa thus not entitled to state benefits?

marshallka

I am still thinking about my complaint for unfair rebate against the PPI policy with Firstplus that has now been taken to LLoyds who are under compulsory jurisdiction.

I have just been looking at the Ombudsman site for any info on cases such as this and it states........

So how do we approach this task? Our starting point is the facts of each individual case. Our objective: the fair and reasonable resolution of the dispute. We don’t expect consumers to be experts. This is not about whether consumers can construct carefully ordered points of law. Consumers are dissatisfied by events and feel the financial business has treated them unfairly. We find out whether or not that is true. In other words, have the actions of the business caused customer detriment?


I will be most annoyed if they say they will not look into this complaint if Lloyds, as I am expecting, reject the complaint. If the Ombudsman has "compulsory jurisdiction" over this then I would expect that if they can find this "fair and reasonable" to pay what I paid towards a PPI policy that was no longer of any use to us because it was a single premium and not cancellable without "penalties" and rebated using rule of 78 then they are not being fair themselves and I shall complain higher.

How could anyone KNOW what the term stated in the policy being actually meant.....

"
If you cancel your policy before its normal expiry date you will receive a rebate of your premium provided you have not made a successful claim. Your insurers will not calculate your rebate proportionally, rather under the Rule of 78 set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. "


It caused a significant imbalance in our rights and was only fair to the insurer in my eyes and was an unfair penalty.
Also this was not written in plain intelligible language and therefore is open to challenge as this put us at a disadvantage and we were not clear about the meaning of this term.
The effect of the unfair term in the contract concluded with a consumer by a seller shall not be binding on the contract.
The contract shall continue to bind the parties if it is capable of continuing in existence without the unfair term - which it was not.




Also there was no cancellation of the policy being the usual 14 to 30 days and this again was unfair.

I know I am sounding off again but if the Ombudsman finds it in their favour then I shall have to ask myself just what they are there for. Is it for the consumer or the banks and finance institutions really. How can being charged £9K (if the loan had ran its course) be fair for an insurance against a loan of £17K and only for 5 years in all.

I just want people to be aware that if they have no comeback with the lenders or brokers due to jurisdiction issues and they really do not want to take this to the courts then try as I am doing and go for a claim against the rebate received if this was an unfair one as most are and this has to be through the actual insurer. Most insurers are under the Ombudsman Compulsory Jurisdiction so this is something they can look into. It comes under unfair terms in contracts and this again is something the Ombudsman can look into.

I have also sussed the actual rebate that was unfairly added at my settlement and backed it up with the Rule of 78 calculator

We work out that the insurance was as follows.
Loan 17000

PPI 4163

Total Loan and PPI without Interest £21163

Repayments 160 x 281.25 = 45000

PPI element of the loan with interest 19.67% =£ 8851.50 (being total cost of PPI and interest)

39 repayments made to settlement
39 x (281.25 x 19.67%) = 2157.48

Breakdown of repayments being £55.32 for the PPI and £225.92 being the loan

Total Cost of the PPI with interest is 19.67% of the loan total being £8851.15 if the loan had run the full course for 60 months cover.

If this policy was rebated using the rule of 78 then it would look like this

Total Credit 4163

Regular payments of £55.38 (being 8851.15 total PPI divide by 160)

Number of regular payments 160

Time to settlement 39+1

Statutory Rebate 2647.98

Settlement £4053.00. This was then added to our settlement for a policy no longer of any use to us.

So its actually £4053 I am looking at for an unfair rebate and if they then say that they will take what is reasonable which is usually 22% admin etc then its still £3161.34 plus statutory interest.

I really hope I get a chance to get back to LLoyds with this one as the figure that I gave before was over £2K over.

Just back this up again and I know its correct as I have put the actual loan without the PPI into the rule of 78 calculator and its as follows
Total loan 17000
Amount of regular repayments £225 (being total repayments of 285 less 55 towards PPI)

Number of regular repayments 160

Time to settlement 39+1

Statutory rebate 10709.63

Settlement Figure £16515.37


I actually paid £20410 which is about the PPI using rule of 78 being £4053 (charged for a policy no longer of any use and very unfair) and add to this to the settlement above and its about right. There is my proof of unfair rebate.


Without this extra £4K of the PPI my settlement would have been £16.5K.

marshallka

trini wrote: »

Hello all,

Just wondered if I might be able to get some help please. I am right in thinking that at some point on this forum I saw a post with a link attached confirming that PPI can not be sold to someone who is only in the country on a working visa thus not entitled to state benefits?

Not seen anything about that myself but hopefully someone can shed some light onto this one..;)

trini

marshallka wrote: »

Not seen anything about that myself but hopefully someone can shed some light onto this one..;)

Thanks I wonder whee I saw it then maybe I'm just having weird PPI dreams.

One other query Lloyds loan have stated they will refund premium of £104.and some pennies plus interest but do not state if this is interest paid or the interest paid plus statutory 8% (as per Martin's letter) got hubbie to ring them to query exact figure before signing and returning acceptance and apparently they couldn't give this as itchanges daily but their interest is sometimes better than the 8%?????????????? Does this mean anything to anyone and can someone translate it to plain English for me please

marshallka

trini wrote: »

Thanks I wonder whee I saw it then maybe I'm just having weird PPI dreams.

One other query Lloyds loan have stated they will refund premium of £104.and some pennies plus interest but do not state if this is interest paid or the interest paid plus statutory 8% (as per Martin's letter) got hubbie to ring them to query exact figure before signing and returning acceptance and apparently they couldn't give this as itchanges daily but their interest is sometimes better than the 8%?????????????? Does this mean anything to anyone and can someone translate it to plain English for me please

Are they refunding you as if missold or is this just a gesture payment? I would ask them for a breakdown of the refund and ask if they are putting you back into the position as if you never had the PPI as this is what would happen with the Ombudsman service.

trini

marshallka wrote: »

Are they refunding you as if missold or is this just a gesture payment? I would ask them for a breakdown of the refund and ask if they are putting you back into the position as if you never had the PPI as this is what would happen with the Ombudsman service.

Ok here goes:

Letter states

Your concerns

Advised unhappy with sale and that your health and exclusions of the policy were not discussed. Also advised that you were on a 2 year working visa at point of sale and not eligible to receive state benefits.

My findings

As you have advised you were on a two year working visa at point of sale I am offering to refund the whole premium of £104.67 plus interest accrued as a result of this amount. Refund will be credited to bank account as loan has ended.

By refunding this amount we will be putting you back in the position, as near as possible, that you would have been in had you not purchased PPI.

Please sign and return acceptance slip blah blah blah


Sorry that's a bit long winded just wanted to tell you what it said.

This was a Lloyds loan and bless them they asked for no proff of hubbies visa unlike stupid Lloyds credit card who wanted proof of PPI (statements for last 5 years) and now want a copy of his visa he was on at point of sale. Surley they are the same company and should work to same standards???!!!!

maxdp

Di

Hope he does not end up looking like a badger:eek:

di3004

Hiya folks, I'm back safe and sound......:o .

It all went well and he even said stuff the barbers.......:D .

Maxdp I was thinking that while waiting for it to complete lol :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: .

Now I'm gonna eat, just thought I would let you know that running away was not needed......lol .xx

marshallka

trini wrote: »

Ok here goes:

Letter states

Your concerns

Advised unhappy with sale and that your health and exclusions of the policy were not discussed. Also advised that you were on a 2 year working visa at point of sale and not eligible to receive state benefits.

My findings

As you have advised you were on a two year working visa at point of sale I am offering to refund the whole premium of £104.67 plus interest accrued as a result of this amount. Refund will be credited to bank account as loan has ended.

By refunding this amount we will be putting you back in the position, as near as possible, that you would have been in had you not purchased PPI.

Please sign and return acceptance slip blah blah blah


Sorry that's a bit long winded just wanted to tell you what it said.

This was a Lloyds loan and bless them they asked for no proff of hubbies visa unlike stupid Lloyds credit card who wanted proof of PPI (statements for last 5 years) and now want a copy of his visa he was on at point of sale. Surley they are the same company and should work to same standards???!!!!

Going by that they are putting you back into the position as if you never had the PPI so I would sign and also add on the signature perhaps that you expect the 8% statutory interest too. If this is then wrong its something that you could take to the Ombudsman to look into for you as you have it in writing that they are supposedly putting you back into this position. They would not dare to state this and and then not do it as they know that again this is another complaint.;)

marshallka

Just found this about unfair terms in consumer contracts and the Ombudsman


In some policies the cancellation clause states that if the firm decides to cancel a policy at any point during the period of insurance, it will refund some of the premiums already paid – on a pro rata basis. However, if the policyholder cancels, then the firm retains all the premiums already paid, or refunds a smaller proportion than if it had itself cancelled the policy.
The FSA statement specifically refers to terms that charge policyholders a disproportionately large sum if they do not fulfil their obligations under a contract, or if they cancel it. We share the view that giving consumers the right to cancel – and then penalising them financially for exercising that right – is likely to be unenforceable in law, as well as unfair and unreasonable.

Looks like we can have them for unfair terms from what it says here...

In cases referred to us, if a customer has cancelled a policy and received a significantly smaller refund of premiums than could be expected as a pro rata settlement, we will ask the firm to explain how its approach complies with the requirements under the regulations.

It is not usually unreasonable for the firm to recover any additional administrative costs it incurs. Nor is it usually unreasonable for its charge to reflect the costs it necessarily incurred in setting up the policy – and that will not now be spread over the assumed lifetime of the insurance.
Similarly, the provision that premiums for an annual contract are not refundable if a claim has been paid does not appear to be unfair.
We recognise that there may also be seasonal or other features of the policy which could justify different approaches to refunds. And we recognise the more fundamental point that under some policies, both the risk and the insurer’s potential liability may be higher at the outset of the policy than at the end – so the premium calculation will reflect this.
But in any event, it is important for the firm to have fair reasons for its approach to premium refunds – and for it to explain its approach clearly to the customer.
In some circumstances, regulatory rules require ‘cooling-off’ periods for contracts. We would expect firms to make particular provision for these periods, as it is important that cancellation rights are not restricted by unfair charging practices. For example, the Insurance Conduct of Business rules require insurers to allow a cooling-off period of 30 days for pure protection contracts. If a customer decides to cancel the contract during this period, insurers are not entitled to charge anything.
Complaints about refunds under payment protection policies – and under other policies that are not renewable – require us to consider some additional factors. We hope to comment further on this in a future edition of ombudsman news.


http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm