Likelihood of rejection

T7G

Hi,

My mother took out a loan with Barclays in 2006, along with a single premium PPI policy.
I am now going to try and reclaim it because my mother had no idea what it was for, and she wasn't told the purpose of it (She was basically pushed into taking it)

Now here's the problem- All the documents I have found relating to the loan/PPI are all in order- they all mention the policy length (full term of the loan), the cost of the PPI, demand and needs statement etc.

How likely is it that Barclays will reject on the fact that it's my mum's word against theirs?


Thank you in advance

src007

T7G wrote: »

Hi,

My mother took out a loan with Barclays in 2006, along with a single premium PPI policy.
I am now going to try and reclaim it because my mother had no idea what it was for, and she wasn't told the purpose of it (She was basically pushed into taking it)

Now here's the problem- All the documents I have found relating to the loan/PPI are all in order- they all mention the policy length (full term of the loan), the cost of the PPI, demand and needs statement etc.

How likely is it that Barclays will reject on the fact that it's my mum's word against theirs?


Thank you in advance

1) Barclays probably gave her information about what she was buying as you suggest.

2) Barclays undoubtedly ripped her off because they thought they were ripping her off ''within the rules''.

3) Barclays won't bother investigating the complaint because they're a bank and really can't be bothered with small fry things like this. I would be very surprised if she didn't get a refund.

T7G

src007 wrote: »

3) I would be very surprised if she didn't get a refund.

Sorry, but is that a typo? I seem to remember reading someone else being rejected because of a similar situation.

src007

T7G wrote: »

Sorry, but is that a typo? I seem to remember reading someone else being rejected because of a similar situation.

Its not a typo, I think she should complain and there is a very good chance of a refund.

This is what the Judicial Review was about really.

Barclays (and others) acted recklessly ripping their customers off for thousands and thousands of pounds because they thought they were ''ticking'' all the boxes e.g. doing 'demands and needs statements', quoting 'costs' etc.

But then the banks were told by the FSA 'no' you shouldn't rip people off and you should pay people back.

The banks then said ''but we followed the rules how can you do this to us''.

You've got to ask - why did the banks feel it was ok to exploit consumer ignorance and charge 4-10 times over the odds for PPI because they thought they were ''following the rule book''?

misschicken

There's a very good chance of a refund because it's single premium PPI, a product that was eventually banned by the FSA. If Barclays reject the complaint you can take it to the FOS.