PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

linlin_3

Hi All

I can't find the answer to my question. Sorry.......... I think I have a valid case for reclaiming PPI but can't find the policy number. I have letters which refer to the mortgage on which I paid PPI, but no policy number. Can I still claim? I paid it from 1997 - 2002.

Thanks

beamerguy

amersall wrote: »

You put claims for mis sell into NRAM, they are dealing with claims for mis sell not Virgin.
I know because i have done this,and a friend of mine did hers 4 weeks ago and NRAM dealt with this,there was no mention of Virgin, had this been the case, NRAM would have said so.

Just given the contact info on this a posts back

abundance39

cappo wrote: »

Hi abundance well my understanding is that if you had a personal loan say and you won misold on that loan any redress could be applied to that loan but i don't think that with the situation you've mentioned under the circumstances the lender would do this, i think they can do it but as the credit card is yours and your claiming on the loan which is in joint names you will probably be alright, see what the others think as i could be wrong. Good Luck:):):):):):):):):)

Thanks Cappo for your insights. Has anyone come across similar experiences before? :A

manama

Hello. Can i ask a silly question please.....

How do banks know if they have missold you? Eg. If you are stating you had adeqauet cover through your employer and it was not explained etc....how can they know?

I assume with self employed ect it is easier....

Ayone know?

Thanks.

cappo

manama wrote: »

Hello. Can i ask a silly question please.....

How do banks know if they have missold you? Eg. If you are stating you had adeqauet cover through your employer and it was not explained etc....how can they know?

I assume with self employed ect it is easier....

Ayone know?

Thanks.

Hi they know by the info they keep on you what your personal details were when the sale took place which is what matters

tigger74

T4FF wrote: »

I have the original loan agreement of an Egg loan I took out with my partner in 2002. It no longer appears on my credit file, so must have been settled over a year ago. I know that around that time, I began to drop PPI on everything as I had a load of them and either didn't know I was paying them (my RBS bank account) or didn't know I could have separate PPI agreements elsewhere (such as with this loan).

I've got all the details, the account number, the amount of the PPI and the monthly payments. I reckon I may even be able to find statements if I looked hard enough.

Despite the age, as I've got my details, is it feasible to complain given the age?

I found my stuff out from 2000-2002 with egg and have sent complaint off, i had letter back 6 days later with the standard we are sorry you had to complain and will be looking in to your complain, blardy blardy blar,lol
si.

tigger74

tigger74 wrote: »

I found my stuff out from 2000-2002 with egg and have sent complaint off, i had letter back 6 days later with the standard we are sorry you had to complain and will be looking in to your complain, blardy blardy blar,lol
si.

Had my response from my first letter which was to say sorry for your complaint, blardy blar.

the question they asked was for me to log onto my online account and bring my details upto date?

They have my details, if i change them is this a ploy by them or being honest about updating details for an account 10yrs old that i never used the online section, my stuff was telephone only when i did and not online stuff.
si

[Deleted User]

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm also led to believe that "front loaded" PPI is a virtually guaranteed reason for complaint. But I only saw this was the case after I had already sent in my initial complaint forms and I've made no mention of this despite the policies being obviously structured in this way. Have I succeeded only in ensuring the bank will simply ignore this and choose to only address what I have specifically complained about?

I'm quoting my own post here because no one has commented whether I have (or have not) shot myself in the foot here. If the bank were to not uphold my complaint, would the Ombudsman look at things like the PPI being "front-loaded" even though I didn't specifically complain about this?
I have to say I agree with everyone here who advises against using a Claim Company (because they are so expensive), but there still seem to be quite a few pitfalls to guard against when filling in the Ombudsman's questionnaire:eek:.

[Deleted User]

tigger74 wrote: »

They have my details, if i change them is this a ploy by them or being honest about updating details for an account 10yrs old that i never used the online section, my stuff was telephone only when i did and not online stuff.
si

I would guess they are simply asking you to update your details because they are not up to date. I don't know why they would do this in a letter addressing a PPI complaint, though.
I do think you are being a bit paranoid about them doing this as a "ploy".
Unless they are telling you they will not proceed with your claim unless you update requested details, I would only comply if you are happy to do so. What details are they asking you to "update"? If it's simply your address, telephone number etc I can't see what harm it could do to your mis-selling complaint.
If you are still in any doubt then get back in touch with them, asking why you should update details online when you can see no logical reason to do so.

dilus

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'm quoting my own post here because no one has commented whether I have (or have not) shot myself in the foot here. If the bank were to not uphold my complaint, would the Ombudsman look at things like the PPI being "front-loaded" even though I didn't specifically complain about this?
I have to say I agree with everyone here who advises against using a Claim Company (because they are so expensive), but there still seem to be quite a few pitfalls to guard against when filling in the Ombudsman's questionnaire:eek:.

If they do turn you down, go back to them with the front loaded reason, this should seal the deal if they choose to ignore it the first time around