Companies in Default/FSCS Claims - Picture, London Scottish, Twopart

busbyh

dialysis wrote: »

HI busbyh how are you hun?:A:A

Fine thanks dialysis, praying for you and beaniebabe for tomorrow:j:j:beer:

beaniebabe

busbyh wrote: »

I don't believe this:mad:

HOSPITALISATION

Quote:
You are only eligible for this if You are between the ages of 65 and 70 or have retired since the starting date.

Did you need anything else on this.

This is absolutley Ludicrious , how many of us would this apply to:mad: on a five year policy

This is absolutly disgraceful!!!!!!:eek:

busbyh

pinknico wrote: »

In the olden days the postman came before 8am, would certainly make things easier if that happened now!

Them's were the GOOD OLD DAYS ;)

pinknico

busbyh wrote: »

I don't believe this:mad:

HOSPITALISATION

Quote:
You are only eligible for this if You are between the ages of 65 and 70 or have retired since the starting date.

Did you need anything else on this.

This is absolutley Ludicrious , how many of us would this apply to:mad: on a five year policy

This is the reason I went for mis selling on second policy!

My OH is now 45 and our demands and needs says:

In particular your demands and needs are for a policy that will make the loan repayments for you in the event you are hospitalised for more than seven days.


We have recommended Picture Payment protector to you to cover the risks of in particular:

If you are hospitalised for seven days a monthly repayment will be made for you and additional daily payments until such a time as you leave hospital.


AM I MISSING SOMETHING MY HUSBAND (AS THE ONLY ONE COVERED!!) IS ONLY 45 AND NOT LIKELY TO BE 65 IN 5 YEARS!!!!:mad:

please tell me you think we have a case for mis advice:o

marshallka

pinknico wrote: »

Good luck everyone for tomorrow! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hope you all had a good weekend.

Di you are not thick, on my second policy I knew all about the 5 years only etc but I genuinly didnt know I had a choice to go with someone other than Picture for insurance!


Busbyh when you have a moment can you post up what your policy says about hospital stays/ hospilisation? Thanks.xx

I think a big difference between FOS and FSCS decisions is for example in the case of the FOS even if you were told Five years and single premium, you'd get your money back because they say it is not value for money etc, the FSCS wont care if you were given all the details. The policy does not matter to the FSCS its what you were told about the policy.
Just my opinion and how I see it.

FOS mostly redress's PPI for bad advice

It says here from FOS site
Many consumers complain to us that they were pressurised into purchasing these policies. Some say that they did not realise they had, in fact, even agreed to purchase a policy. Or they say that they would not have done so, if they had understood the restrictions contained in the policy. Particular issues occur in the case of single-premium PPI products, where consumers may not have realised that they were borrowing the money up-front to pay for the policy – and that if they cancelled the policy before the end of its planned term, they would get back only a relatively small rebate on the premium they had paid.
Our investigation of these issues can involve listening to phone recordings made at the time of the sale, or considering sales scripts and staff training-material – as well as looking at the documentation available during the sale.
We have worked closely over the year with the FSA, trade associations and major businesses, to ensure that our approach is well understood across the sector. At its simplest, we decide most complaints about the sale of PPI on the basis of whether the seller recommended a policy that they should have known was unsuitable for their customer – or whether they provided the information that the customer needed, to be able to decide whether to buy the policy.
If we decide that the business gave poor advice or insufficient information, we normally consider what the consumer would otherwise have done. In most cases, this means returning all the premiums paid plus interest.

That is what I was led to believe as "misselling"?? You must admit we all thought that bad advice was "misselling on site up until now.

busbyh

pinknico wrote: »

Good luck everyone for tomorrow! xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hope you all had a good weekend.

Di you are not thick, on my second policy I knew all about the 5 years only etc but I genuinly didnt know I had a choice to go with someone other than Picture for insurance!


Busbyh when you have a moment can you post up what your policy says about hospital stays/ hospilisation? Thanks.xx

I think a big difference between FOS and FSCS decisions is for example in the case of the FOS even if you were told Five years and single premium, you'd get your money back because they say it is not value for money etc, the FSCS wont care if you were given all the details. The policy does not matter to the FSCS its what you were told about the policy.
Just my opinion and how I see it.

I think your are right what you say about FSCS. Obviously not in their remit to concern themselves about the Policy, which can only be a good thing for those of you who still have one and could be entitled to a NCB:D

dialysis

pinknico wrote: »

This is the reason I went for mis selling on second policy!

My OH is now 45 and our demands and needs says:

In particular your demands and needs are for a policy that will make the loan repayments for you in the event you are hospitalised for more than seven days.


We have recommended Picture Payment protector to you to cover the risks of in particular:

If you are hospitalised for seven days a monthly repayment will be made for you and additional daily payments until such a time as you leave hospital.


AM I MISSING SOMETHING MY HUSBAND (AS THE ONLY ONE COVERED!!) IS ONLY 45 AND NOT LIKELY TO BE 65 IN 5 YEARS!!!!:mad:

please tell me you think we have a case for mis advice:o

ABSOLUTLY Pinkcino we are the same hubby 45 disgusting:mad::mad::mad::mad:

busbyh

marshallka wrote: »

FOS mostly redress's PPI for bad advice

It says here from FOS site
Many consumers complain to us that they were pressurised into purchasing these policies. Some say that they did not realise they had, in fact, even agreed to purchase a policy. Or they say that they would not have done so, if they had understood the restrictions contained in the policy. Particular issues occur in the case of single-premium PPI products, where consumers may not have realised that they were borrowing the money up-front to pay for the policy – and that if they cancelled the policy before the end of its planned term, they would get back only a relatively small rebate on the premium they had paid.
Our investigation of these issues can involve listening to phone recordings made at the time of the sale, or considering sales scripts and staff training-material – as well as looking at the documentation available during the sale.
We have worked closely over the year with the FSA, trade associations and major businesses, to ensure that our approach is well understood across the sector. At its simplest, we decide most complaints about the sale of PPI on the basis of whether the seller recommended a policy that they should have known was unsuitable for their customer – or whether they provided the information that the customer needed, to be able to decide whether to buy the policy.
If we decide that the business gave poor advice or insufficient information, we normally consider what the consumer would otherwise have done. In most cases, this means returning all the premiums paid plus interest.

That is what I was led to believe as "misselling"?? You must admit we all thought that bad advice was "misselling on site up until now.

Yes, I hear what you are saying marshallka. Bad advice is in other words misselling of the policy, But I think we were all just surprised that we would have a choice of keeping it in force or not.

I for one think this is a good judgement made by the FSCS. We all assumed if it was missold that would automatically be cancelled and this is obviously not the case as far as the FSCS is concerned.

At the end of the day Picture are still making loads of interest from us while the loan (inc Insurance amount) is still running, so why shouldn't we still be able to claim on it.

marshallka

busbyh wrote: »

Yes, I hear what you are saying marshallka. Bad advice is in other words misselling of the policy, But I think we were all just surprised that we would have a choice of keeping it in force or not.

I for one think this is a good judgement made by the FSCS. We all assumed if it was missold that would automatically be cancelled and this is obviously not the case as far as the FSCS is concerned.

At the end of the day Picture are still making loads of interest from us while the loan (inc Insurance amount) is still running, so why shouldn't we still be able to claim on it.

I know that they are likely to get lots back from you if you do pay it back. They are however giving you the choice here. If you pay it back you do not have the interest on the PPI so back into the position as if you never had it which is how FOS redress's and I would think that it would just be classed as a capital repayment then and no cancelling the PPI again so you would still be better off. No interest on the PPI, a policy still in force and your NCB too, an affordable roof over your head and also rid of picture sooner or more affordable repayments.

honey2_2

dialysis wrote: »

ABSOLUTLY Pinkcino we are the same hubby 45 disgusting:mad::mad::mad::mad:

You do - I know you do xxx

Honey 2 x