HSBC Won't pay out

MusicalLawyer

I made a complaint about my boyfriends PPI on his loan and credit card that he got when he was 18 (about 7 years ago).

The loan was paid off early, and he cancelled the PPI on the CC when he realised what PPI was.

We complained that the PPI was mis sold as the adviser said that he had to have the PPI on the loan. He didn't need PPI, as he was employed full time, and if he had lost his job / became ill, his parents would have paid the repayments on his loan and CC and he would have paid them back when he got back on his feet.

HSBC are claiming that he 'needed' PPI.
They are claiming that because he had signed things that said he was aware and needed PPI - but he was 18 and thought he needed PPI to get the loan.

They have given us info to complain to FOS, but I know that the FOS are taking up to 6 months to investigate complaints currently. Is this my only option?

Any advice?

BoGoF

In all honesty if his claim is on the basis of his parents would have paid then it is a very weak claim.

If that is HSBC's 'final' letter then his only option is the FOS but unless you come up with a better reason then I wouldn't be confident. What evidence, apart from your BF's recollection of something that happened 8 years ago, do you have to show it was a condition of the loan/CC being given.

MusicalLawyer

Forgot to mention that if he had gone sick from work, he would have been paid Sick pay which would have paid for his repayments. He did not need PPI on his Loan or CC. We have no 'evidence' just what he remembers. He remembers the adviser telling him that he needed PPI on his Loan and on his CC. When he realised what PPI was, he cancelled it on his CC, but by that time he'd already paid his Loan off, early. He then got another loan with HSBC, but did not have PPI on it, as he knew he didn't need PPI.

His brother got a PPI pay out recently, from the same company and he was a Student.

dunstonh

He didn't need PPI, as he was employed full time, and if he had lost his job / became ill, his parents would have paid the repayments on his loan and CC and he would have paid them back when he got back on his feet.

Not a valid reason for complaint.

You have to be employed to have PPI. So, he meets that criteria. If he would have to rely on his parents to bail him out then he has a financial need. So, insurance meets that need. All you have done is given HSBC exactly what they needed to verify that your complaint on these grounds is one they should reject. On that basis they are correct to reject.

HSBC are claiming that he 'needed' PPI.

Which is correct. He has a financial need for it.

They are claiming that because he had signed things that said he was aware and needed PPI - but he was 18 and thought he needed PPI to get the loan.

Why is the fact he was 18 an issue other than proving he was eligible for it?
What he thinks or what he now says he thinks is not something you can prove.

hey have given us info to complain to FOS, but I know that the FOS are taking up to 6 months to investigate complaints currently. Is this my only option?

You can go to the FOS but the FOS will look at this and ask you what you think is wrong. They will look at HSBC response, which is technically correct, and you cant see the FOS overriding it unless there is another failure involved. FOS like evidence and facts.

There is nothing wrong with having PPI. There has to be a failing somewhere.

His brother got a PPI pay out recently, from the same company and he was a Student.

Exactly. That is clearly wrong. You havent provided anything that suggests anything was done wrong.

Forgot to mention that if he had gone sick from work, he would have been paid Sick pay which would have paid for his repayments.

Could have potential. However, how long was the sick pay. If it was just statuary sick pay or short term sick pay then that wont be good enough. if its 6 month full, 6 months half, then that is a very strong complaint.

He did not need PPI on his Loan or CC

You confirmed he did in post #1.

We have no 'evidence' just what he remembers.

.

So an easy rejection on those points as you could be making the whole thing up (not saying you are but plenty do - as many as half of the complaints are try-it-ons nowadays). Evidence is King. Verbal allegations dont cut it. You say they told him this, they will say no they didnt. you cant prove it either way.

He remembers the adviser telling him that he needed PPI on his Loan and on his CC.

He did need it as he didnt have the means to cover his own debts himself if he was ill. You verified this in post 1.


Please dont take the negativity of our responses personally. It would be easy to do so. However, we are only looking at it in the same way a complaints handler would look at it. i go to periodic meetings that tell us about complaints and issues and the sorts of areas that get upheld/rejected by the FOS. It doesnt mean we will be right in our judgements here as we dont have the sorts of facts the complaints handler/FOS will have. All we have is what you say.

At the moment, what you say indicates he had a financial need for it and the response to reject the complaint seems right based on what you have said (unless his sick pay is 6 months full/6 months half at point of sale).

MusicalLawyer

He was employed part time, not full time my mistake. He was contracted to 8 hours per week.

My boyfriend told the adviser the was only contracted to 8 hours a week, but often did 16+ hours. The adviser told him to tick the box which says that you're contracted to at least 16 hours, so he could get the PPI, meaning he could have the loan, as he couldn't get the loan without the PPI.

BoGoF

TBH it seems like you're making this up as you go along.......again can you prove he was told that.

Can you answer dunstonh's question - what sick pay would he have got?

MusicalLawyer

I am not 100% sure what sick pay he would have got back then, he would have to look at his contract when he goes in to work tomorrow, I know his company pay out sick pay for a certain amount of time, and you then have to go on SSP.

He was on 8 hours per week contract when he took out the loan - his work can provide his contract from then, and it will show when his contract was changed to full time hours, which was in 2006, as he has been with the same company since 2004.

BoGoF

Don't take this the wrong way but if this is how you approached the original complaint, i.e. "I forgot to mention" or "I'm not sure" then no wonder it got rejected.

With the information now provided it could be argued your bf has made a potentially fraudulent application by saying he was contracted to work 16 hours a week when he wasn't. At the end of the day nobody forced him to tick the box and sign the form.