Even if you have previously claimed on a Policy???

marshallka

In the FSA publication here on what it expects of firms and REDRESS it states


http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf




Claims and their impact on redress


3.11 Where the firm finds that the consumer would not have bought any PPI policy, but
the firm has previously paid out on one or more claims on the policy, the firm may
deduct the value of those claims from the redress it pays the consumer.
3.12 Where, however, the firm finds that the consumer would have bought an alternative
regular premium policy, such paid claims should not be deducted from the redress,
as they are merely claims on the policy the consumer would have had.


So even if you have previously claimed on the policy but FEEL it was missold to you anyway in the beginning (such as the only policy offered and made a condition of the loan perhaps) then you can still make a complaint.

melorablack

marshallka wrote: »

In the FSA publication here on what it expects of firms and REDRESS it states


http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf




Claims and their impact on redress


3.11 Where the firm finds that the consumer would not have bought any PPI policy, but
the firm has previously paid out on one or more claims on the policy, the firm may
deduct the value of those claims from the redress it pays the consumer.
3.12 Where, however, the firm finds that the consumer would have bought an alternative
regular premium policy, such paid claims should not be deducted from the redress,
as they are merely claims on the policy the consumer would have had.


So even if you have previously claimed on the policy but FEEL it was missold to you anyway in the beginning (such as the only policy offered and made a condition of the loan perhaps) then you can still make a complaint.

Out of all the complaints I deal with, these ones annoy me so much!!! If you used it and it paid out how can it have been mis sold??? :mad:

On the other hand though, if the complaint is upheld...the value of any successful claim is removed from the refund, so you may end up with no PPI and no refund if you claim while your loan is running.

melorablack

marshallka wrote: »

3.12 Where, however, the firm finds that the consumer would have bought an alternative
regular premium policy, such paid claims should not be deducted from the redress,
as they are merely claims on the policy the consumer would have had..

We have never been told not to take the paid claim amount off the redress yet.

marshallka

Another verse from the above here

2.5.9 G If the firm decides that a complainant would have purchased an alternative
regular premium payment protection contract:
10:eek:
(1) the firm should, for the purposes of calculating the refund, use the
value of £6 per £100 of cover as the comparative price of the
alternative regular premium payment protection contract;
(2) the refund payable by the firm to the complainant is the difference
between the total amount actually paid by the complainant in respect
of the payment protection contract and the amount he would have
paid if he had taken the alternative regular premium payment
protection contract;
(3) where the complainant expressly wishes it, cover is to continue until
the end of the existing policy term, with the complainant paying the
price indicated in (1) and able to cancel at any time; and
(4) the firm should not deduct the value of any paid claims from the
refund.

marshallka

melorablack wrote: »

We have never been told not to take the paid claim amount off the redress yet.

These are from the proposals here mel

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf

How on earth does a firm prove that a consumer WOULD have bought an alternative policy

melorablack

I think the magic words here are "If the firm decides that a complainant would have purchased an alternative regular premium payment protection contract"

Most companies didn't offer regular premiums along side the single premiums so until they give some guidlines to say how a company is to prove a complainant would have chosen an alternative product if given the choice then the claim can be deducted from the refund.

Does this make sense? I have read it to myself a dozen times and I don't think it does.... my brain is frazzled lol :rolleyes:

melorablack

marshallka wrote: »

These are from the proposals here mel

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/cp/cp09_23.pdf

How on earth does a firm prove that a consumer WOULD have bought an alternative policy

Crossed post! My point exactly!

marshallka

melorablack wrote: »

We have never been told not to take the paid claim amount off the redress yet.

This instrument comes into force on 1 January 2010 (amendments to the Handbook I think)

The guidance will apply to any such PPI complaint (as defined at 1.4.7R(2) of
the proposed text) that already falls within the scope of our complaint handling
requirements in DISP. For most firms, this will include complaints about their PPI sales

before 14 January 2005 (the date insurance selling became a regulated activity).

The review rule only applies to complaints that fall under the scope of the guidance
but were, in addition, received by the firm on or after 14 January 2005, and rejected

by it (but not settled on a full and final settlement basis, nor referred to the FOS).