A quick question for those in the know

JC12400

Hi
I was wondering if anyone can help me, well my parents really... For years they have been protecting their loans/credit cards simply because they were led to believe that they were compelled to. A couple of years ago they consolidated all of their debts and paid for protection, as it happens circumstances changed and as a result they had to clain on their PPI. I know they can not claim misselling as they have claimed, but what about the previous loans (pre consolidation) no claims were made on any of those so could they go for a refund?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

di3004

JC12400 wrote: »

Hi
I was wondering if anyone can help me, well my parents really... For years they have been protecting their loans/credit cards simply because they were led to believe that they were compelled to. A couple of years ago they consolidated all of their debts and paid for protection, as it happens circumstances changed and as a result they had to clain on their PPI. I know they can not claim misselling as they have claimed, but what about the previous loans (pre consolidation) no claims were made on any of those so could they go for a refund?

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

Hi and welcome.;)
If your parents were mis sold on the previous loan PPI's then yes they should give it a go on the reclaiming.
However, the older they are it may be more difficult, but even so there have still been success with reclaiming as from the 1990's.

I would check this link below for more information, take it from there, but by going what you said, that they were led to believe they had to have this as part of the loans, I would defo give it a shot.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

This link above is useful of Martin's and will give you all the info you need to know, also a checklist of mis selling reasons, template letters and so on.
If your parents decide to do this, its best to post your letters by recorded delivery, and if there were any brokers involved that sold the loans, its them they write to.

Hope this helps and please ask for help if required on this, good luck and please keep us posted, that would be cool.;)

Di

JC12400

Thanks for your response. Thats what I thought but wasn't sure. It's worth a shot at least.

di3004

JC12400 wrote: »

Thanks for your response. Thats what I thought but wasn't sure. It's worth a shot at least.

Your very welcome and good luck.;)

marshallka

Even if you have claimed on the PPI then some can still say it was missold to them if they would have had PPI BUT not chosen to take PPI in the form of a single premium (which is not cancellable without penalties often) and also carries interest so very costly. From what I can tell of the new proposals from the FSA that are due to come into effect in Jan 2010 then if someone is stating they were missold BUT has claimed on the policy cause they could not have bought anything else cause it was not offered then you can still make a misselling complaint. If you have a read of this it says
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.
3.13 More generally, where a complaint raises (explicitly or implicitly) potential issues
around exclusions or eligibility and their disclosure, then irrespective of whether the
main focus of the complaint is on the original sale or a subsequently rejected claim,
the firm should consider whether the same potential deficiency affected both the sale
and the rejection of any subsequent claim, and fairly redress the consumer accordingly.
This should include now paying the claim where appropriate. Where the basic redress
due to the complainant is the full return of premiums, but there is also a claim to be
paid, the firm should pay the larger of the premiums or the claim(s).