MSE News: Banks throw in the towel on PPI

J_i_m

Well I certainly didn't expect this three weeks ago!

If all goes well, as it should now, I could potentially be out of debt a couple of years sooner than I would have otherwise been.

src007

Who was it that said there would definitley be an appeal whatever the outcome? Come on, own up. :rotfl:

beamerguy

It is one thing that banks have at long last seen the error of their ways but for many who were sold PPI's under false pretences, being lied to etc etc, it actually is covered by


Fraud Act 2006 Section 2
Fraud by false representation
(1)A person is in breach of this section if he— (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A representation is false if— (a) it is untrue or misleading, and b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading

For those who were told that the product they were buying albiet a credit card or a loan would only be available to them if they take out a PPI is covered in section 2
For those who claimed only to be told that they were not covered, ie being self employed, even though they had been told by you, are covered by section 2 and section 1

I am self employed and the box was ticked on the credit card application. When the PPI salesman contacted me, he was already aware that I was self employed and continued to offer me a PPI on the basis I would be able to claim. Also covered in section 2

At no time did the salesman advise me he enjoyed a commission or that the bank would also profit from the sale of a PPI.
It has already been ruled that this was a breech of the Unfair Relationships and Unfair Consumer Credit Act Section 78
(case of Lynne Thorius in Sunderland)

By accepting the PPI and its explanation by the representative of the bank, it forms part of a total contract which includes the credit card and if the bank reject your claim
Covered here : (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

For those who have fought this, no doubt you have had debt collector letters and this is blantant harassment. As the banks are now accepting that they must now repay for mis selling / fraudulent PPI's, then you have more than just refunds to look forward to.
If they harassed you, claim for this. If they attempted to harm your credit rating due to fraudulent mis selling, this is very serious and deserves a substantial amount in compensation

I am claiming substantial damages from the RBS and charging them with fraud under the "Fraud Act 2006 Section 2"

I will post their replies here. The time has now gone whereby the banks can be arrogant and ignorant.

J_i_m

src007 wrote: »

Who was it that said there would definitley be an appeal whatever the outcome? Come on, own up. :rotfl:

Pretty much everybody to be fair.

I myself expected the BBA to leave us hanging for 21 days and go muhahahah we're appealing.

marshallka

brewerdave wrote: »

But it won't be a £9 billion boost to consumers - it won't come out of some mythical pot of money in the bank vaults - the banks will be under serious pressure from shareholders to restore balance sheets- just means mortgage/loan rates will go up and savings rates stay lower than they would otherwise be; I haven't got any PPI claims so I will lose out!!!

But if they had not "taken" the money in the first place interest rates would not have been what they "were" before this PPI reclaiming. Banks would not have profited nowhere near what they have over the years and your savings would not have raked in what did. Even when paying every consumer back with their pittance of 8% statutory interest they are still not putting consumers back into the position that they would have been in. Just having a few quid "extra" to pay each month soon mounts up. Banks still would have profited regardless in all of this and HUGE amounts too. They had millions/billions of pounds to play with and I guarantee they will not be losing out half what they make out they are. Just how much has all their dishonest money gain bought them in profits over the past 20 years or so because that is when the authorities apparently knew of the problems with single premiums but chose to do nothing until now. Was it a type of pre planned venture between banks and the government? Having HUGE profits always looks good on paper and can be then used for more money. Its nothing different than the thief that steals his deposit for his house so he can then get a cheaper mortgage rate cause he has a 40% deposit but the thief here gets time in prison. He is not given the opportunity to put it all right with just paying it back is he? Who lost out ultimately? It will always be the consumers, the little people.

You were very fortunate not to have had any circumstances that put you in need of a loan and the unfortunate ones that did were subjected to more needless debt (which is like a spiral) which then is very difficult to get out of.

The bankers still had their bonus's and commissions didn't they. Its not the consumers that are wrong in all of this, its the bankers themselves and THEY should be made to pay regardless although I can see where you are coming from but without all the money they gained from the past sales they would not be in the position they were making themselves to be in. Their profits will ill gained profits and if that were you or me then we would be made to pay.

cleverdicky

Hi,
what annoys me is it only goes back six years.

I had a car loan from Natwest in the mid 80's. I was a driving instructor trying to go it alone.
After interest rates went up to 15% work stopped. I tried to claim on my ppi but told I couldn't. Even the bank staff actually laughed at me and said how can I be unemployed if I'm self employed. I had to sell the car and pay back their loan all but the £498 the ppi cost. I had them chasing me for years for that money with fees, solicitors charges etc. and it ended up being thousands.

I had to move in the end without telling them and never looked back.
It wasn't just the lost money, a helping hand when it was needed is what it should have been, instead the 80's were bleak times
Bank staff then were pure scum.

GillHx_2

brewerdave wrote: »

But it won't be a £9 billion boost to consumers - it won't come out of some mythical pot of money in the bank vaults - the banks will be under serious pressure from shareholders to restore balance sheets- just means mortgage/loan rates will go up and savings rates stay lower than they would otherwise be; I haven't got any PPI claims so I will lose out!!!

I agree - this is only a victory for those stupid enough to sign on the dotted line without taking time to understand what they are signing. There are some of us who make sure that we need something before we sign for it. We are the ones who will be funding all the claims - not the banks.

2sides2everystory

Please don't be so patronising GillHx.

Unless you are a technical wordings analyst for the company that sold you your financial products, and a very good one at that, and have experience of the entire sales function and claims function, then I guarantee that you don't know half the pros and cons of the products you've bought.

src007

GillHx wrote: »

this is only a victory for those stupid enough to sign on the dotted line without taking time to understand what they are signing.

This is going to add a cash injection into the economy, at a time we need a boost! Lot of money for people to spend to get the wheels turning again.

This will dent the profits of the banks and the bonuses will have to be lower because (as far as I understand) their awards are based on performance.

Worse profit for the banks = worse performance from the banking chiefs = lower bonuses.

'Mis-sold' involves unclear or misleading information being provided. Are you saying its someone fault they were being tricked?

GillHx - most PPI complaint are upheld because of the unfair rebate terms weren't made clear on single-premium PPI. Try explaining to anyone you know, what figures to put in a calculator, to work out what rebate terms will be provided at any given point of the loan. :rotfl::rotfl:

Are you really saying even if the banks have done wrong its better for them not to be held accountable because it might it dent their profits and therefore affect your dealings with the bank?

Is it possible for you, to move to a provider who didn't mis-sell and so won't need to increase their rates? Or is the real stupidity staying with a provider who's going to penalise you, for their failings? :rotfl::rotfl:

marshallka

GillHx wrote: »

I agree - this is only a victory for those stupid enough to sign on the dotted line without taking time to understand what they are signing. There are some of us who make sure that we need something before we sign for it. We are the ones who will be funding all the claims - not the banks.

Stupid enough.... people had no choice and were sold it often WHEN applying without it. They often did not sign for it. I know that I did not and it was applied as conditional.

I don't know why you have a holier than thou attitude. YOU will not be paying for it, it was stolen money in the first place and stolen from the likes of me and others so IF you have using and benefiting from stolen money in the meantime some would see that you have been benefiting from money that was stolen from the likes of those that had PPI missold. I have no savings so I have not been raking it in from the profits made from ill gotton gains. Some have, and are quite happy I see, from benefiting from stolen money. It borders fraud how half these policies were sold. Banks have a duty to consumers and one of them is not to defraud and deceive. Both of which they did in my eyes.

Where you say that some make sure that they need something before signing, some are not given choices and are desperate for loans at the time and assumed what they were being led to believe (compulsory etc) was true. You would expect your bank to look after a consumer needs (granted as well as their own) first and foremost.