PPI claiming question

owe2much

can any one clarify that if you make a claim and don't win for mis sold ppi then you aren't entitled to your cash back at the end of the 5 year period?? is that right??

Regards

owe2much

di3004

owe2much wrote: »

can any one clarify that if you make a claim and don't win for mis sold ppi then you aren't entitled to your cash back at the end of the 5 year period?? is that right??

Regards

owe2much

Hi there
To what I know of, yes that is correct, if a claim have been made in the first 5 years the cashback is then out of the window.
A right rip off isn't it?

PaulinWeston

I'm a bit confused ... is this the same as making a claim on your policy and then going on to claim that your policy was mis-sold??? - Dunstonh recently posted some very interesting information about this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2082585

di3004

Hi Paul

With these type of policies of the single premiums, the ones you pay for the life of the loan, and the ppi ends by 5 years, if someone have made a successful claim say for sickness/unemployment, then no cashback is due after the 5 years end.


Yes that was interesting info dunstonh posted up.;)

PaulinWeston

Thanks Di .... and I hope that helps you owe2much :-)

di3004

PaulinWeston wrote: »

Thanks Di .... and I hope that helps you owe2much :-)

Your welcome Paul hunni.;)

It can get quite confusing though as well.

owe2much

sorry should have explained it better than I did! I didn't mean making a claim on the policy ie sickness or redundancy I purely meant trying to prove it was mis sold in the first instance but not winning your case! would that then mean you wouldn't be entitled to "your money back" after your 5 year period??

I'm due to get my money back in may 2010 but didn't want to shoot myself in the foot by trying to make an unsuccessful claim and end up getting nothing.....:eek:

regards

owe2much

sunnygirls

owe2much wrote: »

sorry should have explained it better than I did! I didn't mean making a claim on the policy ie sickness or redundancy I purely meant trying to prove it was mis sold in the first instance but not winning your case! would that then mean you wouldn't be entitled to "your money back" after your 5 year period??

I'm due to get my money back in may 2010 but didn't want to shoot myself in the foot by trying to make an unsuccessful claim and end up getting nothing.....:eek:

regards

owe2much

Hi there i dont think this is the case ,if you lose you havnt actually had any money out of the policy eg for accident ,redundancy . I have a claim with fp at the moment ,they have denied misselling ,waiting for a responce to second letter but i think it will be going to fos Good Luck with this Sunny

marshallka

PaulinWeston wrote: »

I'm a bit confused ... is this the same as making a claim on your policy and then going on to claim that your policy was mis-sold??? - Dunstonh recently posted some very interesting information about this http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=2082585

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

The basic approach
3.2 The basic approach taken in our guidance is for the firm assessing the PPI complaint to:
• consider whether it failed to comply with our rules or was otherwise in breach
of the duty of care or any other requirement of the general law when selling the
PPI policy; and
• assess whether, if it were not for such failings, the customer would have taken
a different course of action;
taking into account relevant materials published by the FSA, other relevant
regulators, the FOS and former Ombudsmen Schemes,
so that:
a) where the firm considers that the consumer would not have bought the policy
the firm sold and would not in all probability have purchased any alternative
PPI policy, the firm should cancel the policy and return the sum of all premiums
and any interest on those premiums paid by the consumer – where necessary, the
firm should also restructure the loan as if the policy had never been taken out;
or
b) (for some single premium policy cases only) where the firm considers that the
consumer would not have bought the policy the firm sold them but would in
all probability have purchased an alternative regular premium PPI policy, the

firm should:

– calculate what the consumer would have paid so far under the relevant
regular premium comparator we stipulate in our guidance;
– refund the difference between this and what the consumer has actually paid
in terms of the single premium and interest on it;
– offer the consumer the chance to maintain their existing policy (and its cover)
to its scheduled end but now on a regular premium basis and at the price of
the comparator policy we have stipulated; and
– restructure the loan (capital and interest) as if the single premium policy had
never been taken out (including terminating interest payments on the original

single premium and, where necessary, collecting the new regular premiums);

or
c) where the firm considers the consumer would in any event have bought the
policy the firm sold them, the firm may reasonably choose not to pay any redress,

even if it had made errors at point of sale – but we expect this will be unusual.

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.