PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

dunstonh

Is it worth taking this to the Ombudsman regarding the mis-selling or will I be wasing my time even trying?

The timebar is a regulatory rule (which is similar to timebarring in courts). The FOS have no ability to overrule a valid timebar.

Jouleo

Hello everyone. This is my first post on MSE so please be gentle...

I am pretty sure I've never had PPI. I'm 100% certain I've never had it on a store card, credit card or my mortgage. I have all the paperwork for all my loans and HP buys going back to 2005, and there's no PPI on any of them. I've just checked. I am totally convinced of this.

Prior to 2005, however, I am not so sure. I used to buy a few things on credit back then (including my first ever car), and whilst I am reasonably sure I never had PPI on any of them, I can't honestly say for sure. I don't have any of the paperwork going that far back, and I can't think of a single case where the company that might have sold me PPI still exists AND I can remember who they were anyway.

I was under the impression that these claims companies would check for you, but from what I read on this excellent website, they don't actually check for you at all.

Sounds like I should just give up. What do you think?

Many thanks
Jouleo

[Deleted User]

Note that it's not somehow "wrong" simply to have had insurance, so even if you did have PPI, that would not indicate that it was definitely mis-sold.

2005 is now 14 years ago, so if you have no documentary evidence of PPI from your own archive, no lender is likely to either.

As for claim companies, the less said about their (lack of) ability to establish whether PPI was paid the better. CMCs do absolutely nothing you cannot do yourself alone and for free.

dunstonh

have all the paperwork for all my loans and HP buys going back to 2005, and there's no PPI on any of them. I've just checked. I am totally convinced of this.

The majority of people never bought PPI. So, that would put you with the majority.

I was under the impression that these claims companies would check for you, but from what I read on this excellent website, they don't actually check for you at all.

The top five lenders are responsible for 80% of PPI sales. So, CMCs send out letters to those top 5 knowing that statistically there is a good chance one will have a hit.

Snuggly_Duvet

Hi
Would appreciate your help....if the PPI payment came out of my bank account but was taken out in my partners name, who gets the money if it has been found the PPI was missold?

[Deleted User]

Snuggly_Duvet wrote: »

Hi
Would appreciate your help....if the PPI payment came out of my bank account but was taken out in my partners name, who gets the money if it has been found the PPI was missold?

The PPI refund belongs to the person named on the policy I'm afraid, not least because only the person named can actually make a mis-selling complaint
If you paid for it on their behalf, then morally (not legally) your partner should pay the refund to you.

Snuggly_Duvet

Thanks - it seems odd that a refund can go to the person who didn’t pay it, doesn’t it. Ah well. I truly am asking for a friend who’s affairs are complicated!

[Deleted User]

Snuggly_Duvet wrote: »

Thanks - it seems odd that a refund can go to the person who didn’t pay it,

Not really, only the person named on the policy could make claim (if they were sick or lost their job) on the insurance too. It doesn't matter one jot who pays or paid the premiums.

Doggle

Deleted_User wrote: »

If you feel you have a genuine complaint, it would be quicker to simply submit your complaint with your evidence.

Gotcha - thanks.

Deleted_User wrote: »

Remember that doesn't mean it was definitely mis-sold, if it was a genuine condition of the loan.

Again, thanks. its interesting that one of the three loan applications was completed on paperwork without a box / opportunity to add PPI, whereas the two in question (one where they acknowledge PPI, and one where they don't) were both completed on forms "With Personal Loan Protection Insurance". This suggests that the 'selling' took place before the completion of the forms, and the forms were selected on the basis of the requirement for PPI.

Doggle

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The problem is that application forms are not incontrovertible evidence that you went on to actually pay the PPI. It's highly possible you went on to cancel the PPI during the cooling off period and that is why the Bank's records only show PPI on the first loan.

By all means present your "evidence" to the Bank and see what they come back with, but unless you have documentary evidence (statements etc) that you actually paid for this phantom PPI, the Bank will not refund anything they have no record of.

Makes sense, although I didn't cancel the loan, or the PPI, but I take your point that it's the evidence that counts. A couple of bits of additional information though:
The first is that I do have a letter from Natwest acknowledging that the new loan replaces the existing arrangement.
The second point that may be salient, is that the "your right to cancel" box (and text) on the second application form has been scribbled out (presumably by the bank's representative), but also has my signature against it, indicating that cancellation wasn't considered an option on this second loan.

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That's a very weak complaint, given that the PPI was clearly described as optional on the Agreement you signed. It was also 25 years ago, which suggests you have a remarkable memory.
Look for a more compelling complaint if you want to be sure of a refund.

Thanks for this, although the specific form used was "with Personal Loan Protector Insurance", so the PPI wasn't optional on the form.