Won my PPI claim but not happy

AJRFulton

I won my PPI claim against the clydesdale bank, they rewarded me £3600.

Anyway, I'm unhappy.

I've took out 2 loans with the Clydesdale in the last 10yrs.

Loan 1 was between 2002-2004, and Loan 2 between 2006-2010.

Now I have been reimbursed for the PPI on both loans (£626 for loan 1, and £3980 for loan 2).

Now the eagle eyes amongst you will notice that totals about £4600, and this is the source of my displeasure.

When I took the loan in 2002 I was in long term, full time employment, and actually used my PPI quite validly when I was made redundant in 2004. I claimed 3 repayments totalling just short of £1000. I do not, and never have felt I was mis-sold this policy.

When I took the loan in 2006 I had went with a career change and was now a contractor, working short term contracts, and maybe changing the company I worked for 3-4 times per year. I took the PPI, informing the bank of my job upon taking, and it was useless. I most definitely was mis-sold this policy!

Now Clydesdale have awarded me £4600, then deducted the £1000 claimed from the first loan to give a final settlement of £3600. Which is less than the £3980 I was claiming for on the second loan. Essentially I'm being awarded £-350 PPI reclaim for the first loan!

My agreement form for final settlement did NOT stipulate the first loan was even part of the equation, and all it stated was they have compiled the figures in accordance with the FOS guidelines.

Advice please. It's not a major amount of money, but it's the principle. I feel the Clydesdale have duped me, and tried to find a sneaky way out of paying the proper amount. I really didn't want to claim the first loan!

More infuriatingly, I have to pay tax on the interest of loan 1, it's not a major amount, but I'm paying tax on money I'm getting taken off me!

AJRFulton

Apologies for the double post, just clarifying further as I wrote this in a bit of a rant.

I signed the form to agree to repayment terms. I have now received this cash.

The form stated that the repayment would be in accordance with the FoS guidelines. At no point have I ever asked for the first loan to be looked into, as well, I don't feel I was mis-sold the insurance. At no point was I made aware that the first loan was part of this until after I had signed the forms and received the cash, only then I was provided a break down of figures and this became obvious.

Upon phoning the Clydesdale I was told I signed the agreement and there is now nothing I can do with it.

I have been back in touch with the FOS as I feel a bit conned.

Genuinely, how the hell can I be awarded -£350 compensation on that first PPI. I was rewarded £626, and paid the bank back just under £1000 for claims made on it.

I do not understand why both PPI's are being treated as one. They were for separate loans, taken out 4yrs apart, at different times in my life, when my career was very different. One was mis-sold, the other was not.

amersall

When you put in a claim for mis sell,some banks look at other loans that you may have had with them.

What was the first loan ppi total with interest,and was this settled early?.

dunstonh

i can see both sides and think its a tough one.

If they only look at one then it looks like you are just being selective to make a financial gain. i.e. first one you were better off. Second one you are not so that is why you are complaining. Surely if you had your view with one then it would apply to the other? Also, there may well be consideration that someone that has had a claim and seen the benefit is more likely to have it on loan 2 rather than less likely.

On that other hand you may well have felt your new job didnt need it. Problem is that these are all touchy, feely, opinions which are hard to be prove either way.

Once you accept the complaint outcome and take the money, it is hard to go back on it. Even if you could, I wouldnt want to call this one either way.

FSA rules do say that even if you dont complain about something, the firm should look at all things to make sure its right . So, they have a strong argument to look at all loans. However, if they are not applying that universally across all borrowers, then it would be unfair.

AJRFulton

amersall wrote: »

When you put in a claim for mis sell,some banks look at other loans that you may have had with them.

What was the first loan ppi total with interest,and was this settled early?.

I had never enquired about the first loan as I didn't think I was unfairly sold it. The Clydesdale looked into it when I was reclaiming my second loan, nobody told me this, and the letter I got on Friday was the first I'd ever heard about it. I got the money through for both loans in a single payment on Friday.

I don't have the exact paperwork on hand, but I've got the rough figures.

The first loan was for £3000 payable over 14mth (PPI cost about £450). The total PPI reclaimed + interest was £626.

The second loan was for £13,000 payable (PPI cost about £2800) over 38mths, and the total PPI reclaimed + interest was £3980.

On the first loan I was in long term employment. I was made redundant 10mths into the policy, waited the initial 2mth period then claimed PPI for months 12, 13 & 14. The total reclaimed was around £980.

On the second loan I had went into contracting after my redundancy 2yrs prior. I had fully informed the bank manager when applying for this loan, and was advised I could still claim should I be out of work, indeed my previous claim on the PPI was used as a carrot to entice me to take it out again!. This proved to be false. Fast forward 18mths from taking out the loan, and we're in a recession an all work has dried up... I cannot claim due to being a contractor.

My point is, the first loan I took out PPI, when I became redundant it kicked in as you would expect the insurance policy to do. I don't feel I was mis-sold it. It did exactly what I signed up for. My second loans PPI did not cover what I signed up for, and I feel I was mis-sold it.

I just feel conned a bit. The Clydesdale did not mention this, or break down any figures until after I had received money. I feel they have been sneaky.

I also feel that if I got made redundant 4mths later than I did, after my first loan had expired thus never needing to use the PPI, the Clydesdale would NOT be refunding me this PPI policy. I feel strongly, by the way of their actions, that they are only doing it this way because it's cheaper for them. If it was going to work out more expensive, I would only be getting the 2nd Loans PPI. I would like to know if the money is being re-compensated to the insurer, or the bank is keeping it?

The way I see it, the Clydesdale have looked at a loan where I feel that I was appropriately sold the insurance, and decided I was incorrectly sold it. What is to stop them looking back at other loans where PPI was sold and used by the client, and retrospectively cancelling them, offering the client compensation for less than the value of the PPI claimed... then demanding the outstanding amount back. Essentially that is what I feel the Clydesdale have did to me.

magpiecottage

This principle actually dates back to the review of personal pensions which supposedly ended in 2002.

Firms had consider whether the initial bad advice had caused a knock on effect with subsequent employment. They could then either look at the entire thing in one go, in which case they could set off any gains against losses, or just do the first one and invite the customer to request later employment was investigated and they could not set off.

That is what Clydesdale appears to have done. This puts you into the bizarre position that if you want full redress on the second sale you will need to show that the first policy was NOT missold and if they do not want to pay Clydesdale will have to prove it was.

AJRFulton

magpiecottage wrote: »

This principle actually dates back to the review of personal pensions which supposedly ended in 2002.

Firms had consider whether the initial bad advice had caused a knock on effect with subsequent employment. They could then either look at the entire thing in one go, in which case they could set off any gains against losses, or just do the first one and invite the customer to request later employment was investigated and they could not set off.

That is what Clydesdale appears to have done. This puts you into the bizarre position that if you want full redress on the second sale you will need to show that the first policy was NOT missold and if they do not want to pay Clydesdale will have to prove it was.

Realistically, I'm not going to go through all the hassles for £350. Although the fact I bought the policy under the guise that if I was injured, or unemployed for more than 60 days, the PPI would kick in. I became unemployed, and after 60 days the PPI started paying my repayments for the 3mths until the policy ended. It's what I paid for, and it's what the policy did.

However I've spoke to FOS, and the Clydesdale, and we'll see what a few stern phonecalls can achieve. Like I say, the Clydesdale never once broke down the figures, or informed me this first loan was being looked at, until after I had agreed.

After this, and just the way they've been with me in general, I'm going to cut all ties with the Clydesdale and take my business elsewhere. As said I strongly believe this was a shoddy move, designed to save the bank money.

Can anyone recommend me a better bank? I know there is probably no such thing as a good bank, but I would be surprised if all were as bad as the Clydesdale.