Saying that you weren't told that you could have got the insurance elsewhere is not a strong argument and even though it is probably true, lets face it - no company will offer you a product and then say "But you could get is somewhere else" never mind adding in "and it might be cheaper too". No-one would ever do any business if that happened, not even the supermarket.
Saying that you weren't told that you could have got the insurance elsewhere is not a strong argument and even though it is probably true, lets face it - no company will offer you a product and then say "But you could get is somewhere else" never mind adding in "and it might be cheaper too". No-one would ever do any business if that happened, not even the supermarket.
But according to the FSA you should be made of aware of buying elsewhere. Its when they do not give the choice that matters. They should always give you a choice. Its like buying a TV from comet and it being cheaper in curry's, even though currys and comet are connected neither would actually say that its cheaper elsewhere BUT you know you have a choice. That is the difference.
But according to the FSA you should be made of aware of buying elsewhere. Its when they do not give the choice that matters. They should always give you a choice. Its like buying a TV from comet and it being cheaper in curry's, even though currys and comet are connected neither would actually say that its cheaper elsewhere BUT you know you have a choice. That is the difference.
But that is a relatively new requirement, for older loans there was no requirement to do this so this point can be defended by the lender in these cases.
But that is a relatively new requirement, for older loans there was no requirement to do this so this point can be defended by the lender in these cases.
So with older loans then you actually should not have had any choice?? It was thought OK to make PPI a condition?? I thought that even rules from the older schemes were the same in that PPI was not conditional to loans? I have learnt something then Mel.;)
So with older loans then you actually should not have had any choice?? It was thought OK to make PPI a condition?? I thought that even rules from the older schemes were the same in that PPI was not conditional to loans? I have learnt something then Mel.;)
What I mean is that the lender should never have said that a customer had to have their PPI and they should have made clear it was optional but if the customer did take it then the lender didn't have to say the PPI could be bought elsewhere.
So instead of saying now for example "The PPI is not a condition of the loan and it may be available from other providers." they only had to say "The PPI is not a condition of the loan."
What I mean is that the lender should never have said that a customer had to have their PPI and they should have made clear it was optional but if the customer did take it then the lender didn't have to say the PPI could be bought elsewhere.
So instead of saying now for example "The PPI is not a condition of the loan and it may be available from other providers." they only had to say "The PPI is not a condition of the loan."
That is where the problem lies though. They just added it automatically or often said "no PPI no loan" so to speak. I thought it was NEVER conditional though choose when it was sold.;)
Replies
But that is a relatively new requirement, for older loans there was no requirement to do this so this point can be defended by the lender in these cases.
What I mean is that the lender should never have said that a customer had to have their PPI and they should have made clear it was optional but if the customer did take it then the lender didn't have to say the PPI could be bought elsewhere.
So instead of saying now for example "The PPI is not a condition of the loan and it may be available from other providers." they only had to say "The PPI is not a condition of the loan."
Thanks for that melorablack.