is this a valid claim?? advice please.. thanks

jimmy46

Hi everyone,

Recently after reading some of your posts regarding ppi reclaims. I had a look through some old paper work and think i might possibly have a claim!!!!
but just wondered if someone could have a look at the details and let me know if anyone thing i have a chance for a refund, and if so wondered if anyone would be kind enough to calculate this for me please.
i had a loan with barclays in 1998 which was then increased/consolidated by new loans with them in 2002 then 2003.

heres the info:

barclay loan took out jan 1998
amount £3500
over 48 months interest rate was 16.9% ( i know what a rubbish rate!!) ppi payment per month was 17.17

this loan was then consolidated with a new barclayloan in jan 2002
this amount £4800
over 48 months interest rate was 12.8%
ppi monthly payment was £24.45

again the above loan was then consolodated with another barclayloan again in sept 2003
amount £12200
over 60 months interest rate was 13.9%
ppi per month was 60.43

When i took out the first loan i was advised i would need ppi for the loan to be accepted, then the following 2 times when i increased the loans they told me the same.

we paid off the loan early in feb 2006. had a small rebate for ppi for just under £100 i think.

i wondered in anyones experience, would you think Barclays consider all three loans for reclaiming ppi??

i have sent a letter to barclays using one of the templates for reclaiming on this website, and after reading some of your posts thought id send a letter to them.

Thanks in advance for any advise.

Kind Regards

roonaldo

PPI like any insurance is not reclaimable. However, can be refunded with interest if found to be mis-sold.

jimmy46

sorry thats what i meant. to be refunded through being miss sold!

thanks

magpiecottage

The specific amount for the cover suggests it was a monthly premium - that would rule out a complaint that a single premium was added to the loan.

Being told it was compulsory when it was not COULD amount to a missale but it would be necessary for you to prove both that it was more likely than not that you were told it was compulsory and that it was more likely than not that it was not compulsory.

jimmy46

Morning, thanks for your reply, i dont think i gave enough info before,

i got the monthly figures i got from the original agreements i have kept, it shows cash loan and premium loan, and shows a breakdown for the monthly payments. for example the most recent loan taken in sept 2003 is as follows

cash loan premium loan
amt of loan 12200 2643.13
total charge for credit: 4537.00 982.67
total amount payable: 16737.00 3625.80
monthly repayment 278.95 + 60.43 = 339.38


how i could prove i was told the ppi was compulsory, unless they can listen to the calls when the loans were arranged. i cant imagine that many people claiming for a refund on the ppi would be able to prove this would they??

i appreciate your advice, im new to this, need all the advice i can get lol.

dunstonh

how i could prove i was told the ppi was compulsory

You cant. However, very few complaints get upheld for that reason anyway. People may add it into their complaint but its not the reason they get upheld. Typically, its ineligibility, single premium (not monthly) or no financial need.

magpiecottage

jimmy46 wrote: »

i got the monthly figures i got from the original agreements i have kept, it shows cash loan and premium loan

"Premium loan" means it WAS a single premium added to the loan. That puts you over halfway there.

There is a defence in that you were told the total cost of the cover over the period of the loan. However, the real benefit of the policy was only £278.95 X the number of months it could have paid out for. (Not £339.38 because the difference of £60.43 would not have been payable each month if you had not taken out the policy).

12 months at £278.95 would be £3,347.40, which is clearly less than the cost of the premium plus interest. It is possible that it could have paid for a longer period or that you could have made multiple claims but I think Barclays' position looks very weak.

So, solely on the basis of what you have told us, I think it more likely than not that a missale took place and a complaint ought to be upheld.

Note that my view of your case has changed completely on the basis of two words: "premium loan".

This illustrates how investigating a complaint works on the most likely reason based on what we know and something that might seem irrelevant can actually show me the case in a completely different light.

jimmy46

Thanks for your advice dunstonh and magpie cottage, i appreciate it. its all a bit clearer now. hopefully they will uphold my complaint

:-)

Placida

Hi,New to the forum although I have been lurking for a while and have been motivated to claim for refunds of PPI premiums & interest paid upfront for 2 barclayloans dated 2004 and 2005 both settled early with new loans. I received a letter yesterday saying they will review my complaint and reply by November 4th.

I haven’t claimed for a further loan that settled the 2005 loan in November 2007 as it didn’t have PPI (or so I thought).The paperwork for loan stated it was a cash loan and there was no mention of any premiums. However,yesterday I too found a Statement of Demands and Needs with the papers for the November 2007 loan paper work.

Statement of Demands and Needs

(It has no signatures or price and is a photocopy)

November 2007
Further to the assessment of your Demand and Needs we have recommended that you take Payment protection cover for your borrowing and you have agreed with our recommendation

We are providing this recommendation because in the event of a change in your circumstances you would experience some difficulty in making the repayments.

You have told us that you will not receive any pay in the event of sickness

You do not have sufficient alternative income or savings to assist with making your payments

You do not have sufficient insurance cover to protect your repayments in the event of involuntary unemployment.

You do not have sufficient insurance cover to protect your repayments in event of accident

You do not have sufficient insurance cover to protect your payments in the event of sickness

You have other financial commitments that will be need to be met in the event of a change in circumstances

We are making this recommendation notwithstanding the specific areas where, if applicable, are detailed below,

You have told us that you will receive sufficient income from your employer for between 9-52 weeks in the event of sickness. You can claim for the full benefit from the start of your illness but your need for Accident and Sickness will be reduced during this period.

You have relieved medical advice for an existing condition and the policy may not cover you in the event of a claim for this condition, we recommend you check the adequacy of any existing arrangements to ensure these fully meet your needs

I was a full time teacher at the time due to retire in 2010 aged 60.The loan was for 5 years and arranged on the phone.
It seems that the PPI was never going to help me anyway in that the PPI served no purpose. Would it have been a mis sold ppi if I had?

Any comments welcomed
Cheers

dunstonh

(It has no signatures or price and is a photocopy)

which is fine.

It seems that the PPI was never going to help me anyway in that the PPI served no purpose. Would it have been a mis sold ppi if I had?

The D&N says "You have told us that you will not receive any pay in the event of sickness". It then goes on to say : "You have told us that you will receive sufficient income from your employer for between 9-52 weeks in the event of sickness."

So, there is some inconsistency there.

However, the D&N was designed to protect both parties. It shows what you needed and what you wanted and verifies what you the product recommended would do and any issues/restrictions you have.

Placida

Thanks dunstonh , I appreciate your input.
I am very grateful for the advice and help given on this forum. I apologise in advance if I seem naive or misinformed as I am still trying to understand the wonderful world of mis sold PPIs!
Do you consider this an accurate layperson’s interpretation of the Statement of Demands and Needs I received that is posted above?

Dear Mrs.Tongueincheek,
Further to your loan application when I ignored the fact you told me you were a full time teacher employed by Any Council and had a generous illness package which would cover a period of sickness as follows: 6 months full pay followed by 6 months half pay and would also have been entitled to a generous redundancy package and a substantial payment would be made in the event of your death in service and even though you have high blood pressure which means you may not be covered in the event of a claim for heart attacks, strokes and related illnesses, I have recommended that you take our Payment protection cover for your borrowing and you have agreed with our recommendation.
Furthermore I might (or not) have realised that as you are 57 you will probably retire before the loan is settled.
Miss Barclay

From FSA review of good and bad practice published in September 2007.
“Poor practice we found included:

Not explaining the PPI product clearly, including significant exclusions and limitations of the policy.
Failing to ensure the customer was eligible to claim against the product.
In advised sales, not finding out whether the PPI policy was suitable for the customer.
In advised sales, poorly put together statements of demands and needs that did not explain the firm's recommendation or tailor the information to the individual customer. "

I ask whose demands and whose needs are being considered? Is this worth the paper it was written on?