PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

di3004

taylor72 wrote: »

GOOD NEWS FOR A LOT OF YOU!! - I have just had a conversation with the FOS - they say 5 of the major banks have now agreed the PPI was unfair and are negotiating with the FOS on all current complaint - FOB of letters are exactly that - if they fob you off just move to the next step and be confident - most cases are going against the banks now!

Wow cheers for posting this.:T
I imagine LLoyds is defo one of those then lol :T:T

di3004

taylor72 wrote: »

Thanks for this - I have literally just got off te phone for the second time today with the fos - apparently as it stands the banks are within their rights to simply reduce your loan if the ppi relates to an existing one, but they are in negotiations with the fos to make a decision whether this is acceptable now or not - fingers crossed they will decide it is up to us - the ripped off consumers:rolleyes:

Mis selling is so wrong and for people who have been mis sold, they have been out of pocket because of it.
It should be a right to have that money repaid directly to the person who was mis sold, especially when there are no arrears and so.

taylor72

hi - yes Lloyds and Natwest are definately one of the 5 banks - the FOS is literally inundated with cases and are trying to iron out the details now - To anyone worrying about recieving fob off letters - don't - it is all standard and doesn't mean anything - I guess they know that out of every 100 fobs they send out, only a certain proportion of people will carry on to the FOS - meaning even though it costs them when it doe go to FOS , they still end up winning - so fight all the way I say

Heather091284

Thanks! I have downloaded the first template letter. Should I mention in the letter that the PPI was sold at an Arnold Clark branch or just refer directly to MMS, as they manage the PPI?

amersall

taylor72 wrote: »

Thanks for this - I have literally just got off te phone for the second time today with the fos - apparently as it stands the banks are within their rights to simply reduce your loan if the ppi relates to an existing one, but they are in negotiations with the fos to make a decision whether this is acceptable now or not - fingers crossed they will decide it is up to us - the ripped off consumers:rolleyes:

my point would be this. if you took a loan without ppi you would not be making that payment to reduce the ppi which is in effect a loan, so why when you claim ppi back (that you were mislead about in the beginning!) should this come off the loan balance? the state of play is, if you win ppi mis sell the bank must put you back in the position you would have been had you not taken the ppi, so by refunding this off the loan, and remember you will only get ppi back that you have paid off the loan, the rest of the ppi will come off your loan, i think you should have the ppi back that you have paid, that in actual fact you would not have had to pay had you not been mis sold, does this make sense?

taylor72

amersall wrote: »

my point would be this. if you took a loan without ppi you would not be making that payment to reduce the ppi which is in effect a loan, so why when you claim ppi back (that you were mislead about in the beginning!) should this come off the loan balance? the state of play is, if you win ppi mis sell the bank must put you back in the position you would have been had you not taken the ppi, so by refunding this off the loan, and remember you will only get ppi back that you have paid off the loan, the rest of the ppi will come off your loan, i think you should have the ppi back that you have paid, that in actual fact you would not have had to pay had you not been mis sold, does this make sense?

I completely agree - hopefully the banks will agree too - they are negotiating this with the FOS at the moment, so fingers crossed

amersall

di3004 wrote: »

its just not fair is it, these banks don't want to see anyone with anything, its as if its another punishment, mis selling is so wrong and for people who have been mis sold, they have been out of pocket because of it.
It should be a right to have that money repaid directly to the person who was mis sold, especially when there are no arrears and so.

hear hear,

di3004

Heather091284 wrote: »

Thanks! I have downloaded the first template letter. Should I mention in the letter that the PPI was sold at an Arnold Clark branch or just refer directly to MMS, as they manage the PPI?

Hi there
Not a problem.;)

Whoever sold you the ppi is the ones to complain to, when the sale taken place, sorry if I mis read your last post, did you mean it was sold to you by MMS or Arnold Clark?
If Arnnold Clark sold this then its them.;)

di3004

amersall wrote: »

hear hear,

lol, the last few days I have read that many here have been refunded directly onto their loans, they had no arrears where the refund could have helped them in many ways, with them being deprived of their money in the first place.
Okay it still helps, but maybe there were other debts to clear where the money would help them pay for them.:D;) I think they should then be given a choice if no arrears, fair enough if its what people want.;)

taylor72

Does anyone know how long they have to respond to the second letter we send them - I am also trying to claim back credit card PPI and sent the second letter to them recorded on 10th March - is it 8 weeks?

many thanks in advance