Ppi reclaim response - next step help

SHIFT09

Hi.
I have received a response to my initial letter to HSBC.

When I took out a loan in 04 I was told that 'because I was consolidating debt so soon after a previous loan. Taking the bank's PPi would help in getting loan approval'

I have since paid the loan off.

The bank sent to me the paper work for the original loan application stating they could find no evidence of mis-selling and that I had signed the agreement that showed ppi was optional.. (the above statement regarding the ppi was made verbally during the face to face loan application so it's my word against theirs)

Have I any grounds to take this forward and if so what is my next step.

any help would be most welcome.

marshallka

SHIFT09 wrote: »

Hi.
I have received a response to my initial letter to HSBC.

When I took out a loan in 04 I was told that 'because I was consolidating debt so soon after a previous loan. Taking the bank's PPi would help in getting loan approval'

I have since paid the loan off.

The bank sent to me the paper work for the original loan application stating they could find no evidence of mis-selling and that I had signed the agreement that showed ppi was optional.. (the above statement regarding the ppi was made verbally during the face to face loan application so it's my word against theirs)

Have I any grounds to take this forward and if so what is my next step.

any help would be most welcome.

If you think you still have a complaint then I would write back and reiterate your original complaint and reasons and get a final response (if the above letter is not one) and then take it to FOS if they do not uphold in your favour.

PaulinWeston

If you believe the PPI was mis sold then you could continue with the complaint.

You could say that their argument that you “signed the agreement that showed ppi was optional” is incorrect: The Court of Appeal in HOWARD MARINE AND DREDGING CO. LTD. v. A. OGDEN & SONS (EXCAVATIONS) LTD. [1975 H. No. 4557], establishes that a clause in a contract which states that a signature indicates full acceptance is not valid where it would be unlikely that the customer would have the skill and inclination to go through the fine detail. Moreover, the same case establishes the burden of proof in relation to Misrepresentation Act claims: that a customer should be able to rely on the information given, and that even without an intent to misrepresent, if the consequences of a misrepresentation are such that a customer is disadvantaged then that is enough.