PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

Crv72

Thank you Nasqueron.
If the loan was front-loaded will the bank uphold the claim for this even if I haven’t included it being front-loaded as one of my reasons for ms-selling?
Thanks.

dunstonh

Front loaded is not the reason it used to be when it comes to success. If there was no rebate on early repayment then it is. If there was a repayment on early repayment then you can now see that reason fail. (ignoring any other reasons that may exist)

MissBrittain

FOS have not upholded my claim even though I never knew I was paying it, didn't know how much it was, it was never detailed on my statement, the x in the box was computerised, it was cancelled after 2 years of a 5 year period which I never initiated. having to accept the plevin ruling.

Bermonia

Sounds about right MissBrittain.

Depending on the product it may or may not appear on statements - with regard to the early cancellation, banks aren’t usually on the habit of cancelling PPI off their own backs (it reduced the amount of they would earn), computerised crosses/ticks are considered likely result of discussion and in place before you signed agreeing to it.

Nasqueron

MissBrittain wrote: »

FOS have not upholded my claim even though I never knew I was paying it, didn't know how much it was, it was never detailed on my statement, the x in the box was computerised, it was cancelled after 2 years of a 5 year period which I never initiated. having to accept the plevin ruling.

When you say "not on your statements", are you referring to credit card PPI? If so, it was listed on every statement every month as a separate charge - it logically has to be as your balance would not add up otherwise.


The x in the box is irrelevant, if you applied online you would have to tick the box, in a branch, if you agreed it would be printed out like that to sign or if sold on the phone, they would have ticked it.


Realistically if those were your complaint reasons it's an easy rejection as they don't stand up to evidence the bank can provide.

ukrooo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

In what way were these important and useful insurance policies mis-sold?

Because we already had life insurance through another company so would not have wanted another policy, and the protection policy was invalid I think because I was not in employment.

ukrooo

I had a letter with a mortgage offer that stated as a special condition that they "would normally lend me £x but will lend me £y (more) because we will arrange additional mortgage security to cover the difference. The fee for this additional mortgage security will be £z. You will pay this to us". Does this mean that the policy was miss-sold? Please don't slate me for asking - I don't want to claim for the sake of claiming - I genuinely don't know.

[Deleted User]

No - it was a condition of the further borrowing.

[Deleted User]

ukrooo wrote: »

I had a letter with a mortgage offer that stated as a special condition that they "would normally lend me £x but will lend me £y (more) because we will arrange additional mortgage security to cover the difference. The fee for this additional mortgage security will be £z. You will pay this to us". Does this mean that the policy was miss-sold?

No. It means you were offered a preferential rate on condition that an insurance policy was purchased.
How would that be mis-selling?

It would only be mis-sold if you were told inaccurate information in order to close the sale. Remember, it's not wrong to be told, for example, that the insurance is compulsory unless it actually wasn't.

ukrooo

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

No. It means you were offered a preferential rate on condition that an insurance policy was purchased.
How would that be mis-selling?

It would only be mis-sold if you were told inaccurate information in order to close the sale. Remember, it's not wrong to be told, for example, that the insurance is compulsory unless it actually wasn't.

Thanks That is very helpful. There's so much confusing and incorrect information out there.