PPI Reclaiming Discussion part 4

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

is this a calculation to give back the money now - sorry been off for a while, the difference could be that the cheeky blighters are trying to charge an administration charge / risk element - I've had them try 22% just the other week !!!

I just know that rule of 78 calculator that I posted on here worked my co-op ones (which I did argue cause of what I was expecting back but forgot that interest would have been rebated in the settlement figure which is hard to actually work out) actually worked to the penny. Also it works on my FP one and the figure it produces is what I paid at settlement but with Di's it works out more than she actually paid. It works the same as my co-op ones. The settlement it produces was then reduced by the rebate I had against the PPI. It took about 5 letters on arguments with my adjudicator for me to realise that INTEREST was rebated on the loan settlement so when you produce a figure doing the formula of misselling you have to then take away the amount of interest from the PPI that is rebated at settlement.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

HBOS told us that it used the rule of 78 method to calculate rebates on single-
premium policies. It said that the rule recognized the way in which insurance risk and
expenses were incurred over the lifetime of the policy up to termination. Because the
outstanding loan amount is large at the beginning of the loan and small towards the
end, and due to the upfront nature of expenses, for example selling costs and placing
the policy on risk
,
the risk being covered by the insurance per unit of time is higher at
the beginning of the policy than it is at the end. HBOS said that the rule of 78
reflected this pattern. We accepted this argument as being valid for policies where a
condition can be covered for the life of the loan (for example, most providers offer
insurance in the event of accident or sickness for the duration of the event, up to the
life of the loan or five years, whichever is shorter). However, it could be contended
that the argument is only partially valid in circumstances where insurance is paid for
up to 12 months (for example, in the case of most unemployment claims); in this
case the level of risk borne by the insurer is the same until the last year of the policy,
when the risk decreases because there is less than a year left to insure


An extract from the competition commission report about its use and "RISK". Its not a valid argument really......

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:jes8zi5ThkMJ:www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/reports/2009/fulltext/542_5_2.pdf+rule+78+used+in+PPI+rebate+and+risk&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

No it's the biggest rip off ever !!!!

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

the following is part of a ppi policy doc it's a table for working out early termination rebates - it gives months cancelled and what % you'll be rebated of the overall policy - as you'll see if you rebate after only the 3rd month you'll have to pay 91.75% back as they only rebate you 8.25%

MC - %
1 - 8.75
2 - 8.50
3 - 8.25

6 - 7.75

12 - 6

24 - 3
36 - 0

My rebate with FP was 7% of the cost of the PPI after 38 months BUT only 7% of the actual PPI amount that was unused without interest in the calculation. I am hoping they will calculate using pro rata at least. I would be contented at that.;)

Nothing more, nothing LESS

I gave FOS an example that if i cancelled my PPI policy which cost £9K in total if loan went to term but say I cancelled after 1 month I would still have to pay £4200 of a £4163 using the rule 78 method.

Madness.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

My rebate with FP was 7% of the cost of the PPI after 38 months BUT only 7% of the actual PPI amount that was unused. I am hoping they will calculate using pro rata at least. I would be contented at that.;)

Nothing more, nothing LESS

I gave FOS an example that if i cancelled my PPI policy which cost £9K in total if loan went to term but say I cancelled after 1 month I would still have to pay £4200 of a £4163 using the rule 78 method.

Madness.

I know it's absolutely outrageous - I haven't been on here for a while, did you get that one all sorted ???

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

I know it's absolutely outrageous - I haven't been on here for a while, did you get that one all sorted ???

No, its against the insurer and FOS are having problems they say as I have to PROVE the rebate is unfair. Its ongoing and have been told up to another year.:eek: I will sort it though. I also want FP for the rule 78 being used in the actual loan. Have you ever challenged that one? I don't mean to do with the PPI but the loan without the PPI on it? Being a sub prime lender and us being not able to get a 125% loan in reality from anywhere else then they should not have used it TBH. They say they are not sub prime....hmmmmm

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

No, its against the insurer and FOS are having problems they say as I have to PROVE the rebate is unfair. Its ongoing and have been told up to another year.:eek: I will sort it though. I also want FP for the rule 78 being used in the actual loan. Have you ever challenged that one? I don't mean to do with the PPI but the loan without the PPI on it?

no sorry, I only 'do' ppi - I'm a bit lost on your FP ppi, did you take your complaint to the underwriters then ??

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

no sorry, I only 'do' ppi - I'm a bit lost on your FP ppi, did you take your complaint to the underwriters then ??

FOS wrote to me saying they could not hold FP responsible for the rebate as the rebate was determined by the insurer. They then wrote to the insurer and the insurer has protested. Its all ongoing but spoke to them last week and with rebates he said its very hard as you have to prove the rebate is unfair.

marshallka

Tiggrae, this is what they told me

Thank you for your email regarding your above mentioned complaint. Your complaint has been passed to me to determine whether or not it is one which we can consider. From the papers in the file I understand that you would like us to investigate a complaint about the unfair rebate paid on your PPI policy.

Whilst I appreciate that your policy was sold by Firstplus, and issues relating to rebate payments should be directed to the insurance company who underwrote the policy. I therefore suggest that you initially contact the insurance company as they provided the rebate, in order to raise your concerns with it. Details of the insurance company should be stated in your policy booklet.

The complaint handling procedures which are laid down by the Financial Services Authority, state that a business must be provided eight weeks from date the complaint is received, so that it has the opportunity to ‘put things right’, and investigate the complaint. The insurance company should therefore have eight weeks from date of receipt of your letter to look into the complaint and issue its final response letter on the matter. Consequently, if after receipt of its final response letter, you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of its investigations, you should contact us within six months from the date of its letter to refer your complaint to us.

On the basis that Firstplus are not responsible for the unfair rebate issues relating to your PPI policy, it would be inappropriate for me to investigate a complaint against it, and for that reason I will move to close the complaint unless I hear from you with any further comments.





Just playing the waiting game now.

tiggrae

marshallka wrote: »

Tiggrae, this is what they told me

Thank you for your email regarding your above mentioned complaint. Your complaint has been passed to me to determine whether or not it is one which we can consider. From the papers in the file I understand that you would like us to investigate a complaint about the unfair rebate paid on your PPI policy.

Whilst I appreciate that your policy was sold by Firstplus, and issues relating to rebate payments should be directed to the insurance company who underwrote the policy. I therefore suggest that you initially contact the insurance company as they provided the rebate, in order to raise your concerns with it. Details of the insurance company should be stated in your policy booklet.

The complaint handling procedures which are laid down by the Financial Services Authority, state that a business must be provided eight weeks from date the complaint is received, so that it has the opportunity to ‘put things right’, and investigate the complaint. The insurance company should therefore have eight weeks from date of receipt of your letter to look into the complaint and issue its final response letter on the matter. Consequently, if after receipt of its final response letter, you remain dissatisfied with the outcome of its investigations, you should contact us within six months from the date of its letter to refer your complaint to us.

On the basis that Firstplus are not responsible for the unfair rebate issues relating to your PPI policy, it would be inappropriate for me to investigate a complaint against it, and for that reason I will move to close the complaint unless I hear from you with any further comments.





Just playing the waiting game now.

just sent you a PM !!!!

marshallka

tiggrae wrote: »

just sent you a PM !!!!

Pm'd ya back;)