'"Wish I'd been stupid enough to get PPI in the first place"' blog discussion

Former_MSE_Helen

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's "Wish I'd been stupid enough to get PPI in the first place" Blog.

Please click 'post reply' to discuss below.

SavvyS

I had opened a current account (for salary purposes) with Lloyds TSB and I was told that a PPI was compulsory. I was told that for every pound spent on my debit/credit card I would be paying some pennies towards the PPI. I did not use the credit/debit cards so effectively I have not spent anything towards the PPI. Should I still complain? Would I still be entitled to a compensation?

working

The thing is, these people who didn't read the small print (and are therefore foolish for not doing so) have been rewarded because of the interest recieved.
In most cases this puts them in a better position because they wouldn't have invested the money in an 8% account in the first place.

Millie_Millsters

working wrote: »

The thing is, these people who didn't read the small print (and are therefore foolish for not doing so) have been rewarded because of the interest recieved.
In most cases this puts them in a better position because they wouldn't have invested the money in an 8% account in the first place.

Did you actually read Martin's blog??

oldvicar

Being LIED to that policies were compulsory – they weren’t.

Yes they were ... if you wanted to be accepted for a loan.

Everybody who wasn't stoopid knew that.

MSE probably even commented at the time about the quasi-compulsory nature of these policies ... and if he didn't then where the hell was he?

Percy1983

Sorry but I still do feel its wrong, I read small print so never ended up with PPI, with that I didn't the security of PPI.

I seems if somebody at the same time didn't read the small print then they got x years of security and at the end out it get the money back anyway.

So a the savvy person gets nothing, less savvy people gets years of free insurance.

MSE_Martin

oldvicar wrote: »

Yes they were ... if you wanted to be accepted for a loan.

Everybody who wasn't stoopid knew that.

MSE probably even commented at the time about the quasi-compulsory nature of these policies ... and if he didn't then where the hell was he?

No at the time I said "it wasn't compulsory" as it wasnt and not to go for it - as you could get far cheaper standalone policies if it was neeeded (its even if my first book I think). And that's the point. This was a lie - to be compulsory the PPI had to be within the APR. So if they said it was, or even worse, it actually was then the whole thing is a scam - which takes us back to the blog.

RuthnJasper

I have an IQ of 159, hopefully I'm not stupid... but I got PPI because I was told it was necessary.

I have yet to receive anything back; I'm still awaiting a decision from the FSA.

Of course, if it was some dodgy 'back street' place then it's sound to read the conditions extremely carefully (if you even find yourself these in the first instance) - but most of these loan and card providers are long-established businesses with a reputation to protect. Therefore you expect that their advice is correct and honest.

This doesn't mean that I'm daft, though I certainly feel stupid.

Alpine_Star

Percy1983 wrote: »

Sorry but I still do feel its wrong, I read small print so never ended up with PPI, with that I didn't the security of PPI.

I seems if somebody at the same time didn't read the small print then they got x years of security and at the end out it get the money back anyway.

So a the savvy person gets nothing, less savvy people gets years of free insurance.

They didn't get ''years of free insurance'' because, in broad terms, they either didn't know they had it or couldn't claim on it if they did - due to it being mis-sold. Get it?

Percy1983

Alpine_Star wrote: »

They didn't get ''years of free insurance'' because, in broad terms, they either didn't know they had it or couldn't claim on it if they did - due to it being mis-sold. Get it?

Just because they where told they had to have it when they didn't they can't claim on it?

I am pretty sure they could claim and I guess many did.

With that can people still claim it back if they made a claim? as that would be even worse.

Alpine_Star

Percy1983 wrote: »

Just because they where told they had to have it when they didn't they can't claim on it?

Like I said in broad terms PPI was mis-sold either because it was loaded without the express knowledge of the customer or because it was unsuitable and couldn't be claimed on. Only a relatively small proportion was mis-sold as being compulsory - Competition Commission figure bear this out - and as such your ''years of free insurance'' theory largely doesn't apply. But even if it did, so what?

Perhaps those who flogged PPI should have read the FSA small print that obliges them to refund mis-sold premiums plus 8%.