Forum Home» Reclaim PPI & Other Insurance

PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5 - Page 1100

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Reclaim PPI & Other Insurance
11K replies 1.7M views
110961097109811001102

Replies

  • sh5sh5 Forumite
    4 posts
    Name Dropper First Post
    MoneySaving Newbie
    ok mug me off.
    is it not the government or 'law' (maybe the wrong term to use) that have told banks to repay the mis-sold ppi, also being referred to as a scam by many, from 'money set aside'?
    i know that Barclays were honest and kept me informed throughout their investigations and also fully explained that as they had no records they could check directly and precisely (back to 1993/4) they offered a settlement based upon an average of similar claims that they had paid out over the timescale similar to the one mine reffered to, whereas in comparison Santander have had limited to no information regarding the claim just a letter apologising for the delay every now and then until i finally received a letter telling me to sod off pretty much.
    i guess that is just the difference between a more reputable business wanting to uphold their reputation, and Santander not being as customer orientated just for profit.
    they have records they can offer a set amount for on the loan that is at most 6 months later, yet no records at all for the credit card.

    back in those days there was a thing called 'micro-fiche' a bit like a photograph negative that would be placed onto a viewing machine, most financial institutions used them. it was the equivalent to a modern day compressed file. all those files would have been transferred from the company that was taken over by Santander bank.
    if they were chasing me to pay them, there would no doubt be some file appear from somewhere with all my information of a debt on it that they would quote precisely.

    Have you given them any evidence of its existence and the fact that PPI premiums were paid?
    I am searching through old paperwork to see if i can find the original agreement but have not come across it as yet.



     They say they have no records to show I ever had PPI and it is upto myself to prove that I did.
    Correct.
    from what i have read on the MSE site and also the Resolver pages, it comes across that having no records or proof should not be an issue.
    maybe i wasted my time here and presented nothing more than a couple of soap boxers the chance to jump into the spotlight latching onto your reply dunston, anyway thanks for addressing it in a relatively constructive manner hopefully i will find the original contract and can prove to them i had it.
  • FarfetchFarfetch Forumite
    561 posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    sh5 said:
    ok mug me off.
    is it not the government or 'law' (maybe the wrong term to use) that have told banks to repay the mis-sold ppi, also being referred to as a scam by many, from 'money set aside'?
    No, it is not the law, it was the regulator. They do not have to repay it, you complain about it and if the complaint is upheld, you get a refund. Many people believe a lot of things, plenty of people have benefited from PPI (though typically MPPI customers)
    i know that Barclays were honest and kept me informed throughout their investigations and also fully explained that as they had no records they could check directly and precisely (back to 1993/4) they offered a settlement based upon an average of similar claims that they had paid out over the timescale similar to the one mine reffered to, whereas in comparison Santander have had limited to no information regarding the claim just a letter apologising for the delay every now and then until i finally received a letter telling me to sod off pretty much.

    Different bank, different approach. Barclays had some records showing you had PPI, just not precise ones, so agreed a refund
    i guess that is just the difference between a more reputable business wanting to uphold their reputation, and Santander not being as customer orientated just for profit.

    You admitted this product was not taken out with Santander. Santander have no records you paid PPI 
    they have records they can offer a set amount for on the loan that is at most 6 months later, yet no records at all for the credit card.
    Different product, apples and oranges
    back in those days there was a thing called 'micro-fiche' a bit like a photograph negative that would be placed onto a viewing machine, most financial institutions used them. it was the equivalent to a modern day compressed file. all those files would have been transferred from the company that was taken over by Santander bank.

    If you have proof they did this, rather that assuming this is what they did, present the proof
    if they were chasing me to pay them, there would no doubt be some file appear from somewhere with all my information of a debt on it that they would quote precisely.
    If you had an open debt, yes they would have records, that is perfectly logical. A closed card/loan, it is perfectly logical they would get rid of the records in line with the DPA and GDPR
    Have you given them any evidence of its existence and the fact that PPI premiums were paid? I am searching through old paperwork to see if i can find the original agreement but have not come across it as yet.
    So you have no proof you made these payments, but want a refund anyway? That sounds suspiciously like what you are accusing them of doing to me,


    They say they have no records to show I ever had PPI and it is upto myself to prove that I did. from what i have read on the MSE site and also the Resolver pages, it comes across that having no records or proof should not be an issue.
    How did you come to that conclusion? They have no proof you paid PPI, you have no proof you paid PPI yet you want them to refund premiums you don't know you paid?
    maybe i wasted my time here and presented nothing more than a couple of soap boxers the chance to jump into the spotlight latching onto your reply dunston, anyway thanks for addressing it in a relatively constructive manner hopefully i will find the original contract and can prove to them i had it.

    The original contract doesn't prove you paid PPI, you could have cancelled it immediately. You can have PPI but never pay it if you pay your card off in full every month
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    104.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    is it not the government or 'law' (maybe the wrong term to use) that have told banks to repay the mis-sold ppi, also being referred to as a scam by many, from 'money set aside'?

    No. Neither of those.  It was the regulator.   The whole process uses the same complaints process put in place in the 1988 when regulation began.  There are no laws or Government dictates with respect to PPI.  Just guidance from the FCA.

    i know that Barclays were honest and kept me informed throughout their investigations and also fully explained that as they had no records they could check directly and precisely (back to 1993/4) they offered a settlement based upon an average of similar claims that they had paid out over the timescale similar to the one mine reffered to, whereas in comparison Santander have had limited to no information regarding the claim just a letter apologising for the delay every now and then until i finally received a letter telling me to sod off pretty much.

    That would indicate the Barclays had some records to show you had PPI.    Was that a loan?   It is possible for the banks to see if you had  PPI or not from their account number record.   The details of how much etc will be long game from 93/94 but as loan PPI was a fixed price per amount borrowed, it is easy for them to work out what you would likely have paid.    That is not possible with credit cards as the amount varies based on your balance not repaid at the end of each month.

    Barclays, on their credit card, kept a rolling 6 years on transactions. I think they may have upped it to 10 years but they too would have long destroyed the data if the credit card would have been with them.

    back in those days there was a thing called 'micro-fiche' a bit like a photograph negative that would be placed onto a viewing machine, most financial institutions used them. it was the equivalent to a modern day compressed file. all those files would have been transferred from the company that was taken over by Santander bank.
    if they were chasing me to pay them, there would no doubt be some file appear from somewhere with all my information of a debt on it that they would quote precisely.
    Indeed, there were.  However, these too have had to be destroyed when the data is no longer required.    If they were still chasing you for a debt, your account would still be open and appear on their computer systems.   They wouldn't need a microfiche.  Once an account is closed and the debt repaid, the clock starts ticking on destruction of data.

    it is also worth noting that when a company buys the business book of another, it is often only the data of open accounts that is transferred over to the new company.  Not closed accounts.  If its a full purchase of the company then they get the lot.  If the original company is retaining its brand and trading in other areas then often it will just be relevant data for open accounts.     Closed account data doesnt get passed over and the original company will destroy the data in accordance with FCA guidelines (the FCA has a list of recommended timescales and closed accounts in non-high risk regulatory areas would be 6 years)

    from what i have read on the MSE site and also the Resolver pages, it comes across that having no records or proof should not be an issue.
    MSE site is correct for the majority of cases.  However, like most articles on MSE, it focuses on the majority.  Not all.   Something that Martin Lewis explained when he used to own this site.   Articles cannot cover all scenarios or variences.  They have to be punchy and easy to read and they focus on the things that will be right in the majority of cases but not always in all cases.
    There is no requirement for you to provide evidence or have records to make a complaint.   However, if the bank no longer holds records itself, then it falls upon you to provide the evidence.

    maybe i wasted my time here
    No you haven't.  Just because the information isn't what you want to hear doesnt mean the information is wrong.   You just hit a dead end.

    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • brettctabrettcta Forumite
    4.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    yEa BuT wHaT aBoUt ThE lAw
    helpful tips
    it's spelt d-e-f-i-n-i-t-e-l-y
    there - 'in or at that place'
    their - 'owned by them'
    they're - 'they are'
    it's bought not brought (i just bought my chicken a suit from that new shop for £6.34)
  • sh5sh5 Forumite
    4 posts
    Name Dropper First Post
    MoneySaving Newbie
    @farfetch, my proof is working for one of the top 5 insurance companies in the world from 5th August 1991, they used this system, so did a lot of banks but thats my word and experiences against anyone elses who say they did not do this and as Cahoot was essentially online banking and Macintosh/IBM compatible computing they most likely did not therefore the files would probably be in .rar form and no doubt destroyed due to the term the law states they must be kept for, as set out by others above.
    I have kept the original agreement but after 20 years cannot pinpoint it, i continue to look for it.
    I did not pay the cards off in full every moonth, mainly due to working hours being cut and my bank at the time - RBS - bouncing payments for being 2 or 3pounds under the amount, thus incurring £35 charges at both the bank and then the credit card = £70 charges next month on already reduced wages, until i found a new job by which time === spiral out of control === lots of interest + lots of charges, therefore, stop me if i am wrong, incurring payments which did have ppi - not provable by myself presently.

    @dunston, it was regulator I meant not law, and no it was credit cards with Barclays. This currently ongoing claim between Santander - previously Cahoot - is accepting only the loan agreement, the credit card has been totally fobbed off. Also, in addition to being made to feel like something scraped off their shoe, they are witholding the statutory 8% backdated interest on grounds that it is a flexible loan. This was not an issue with Citi Bank who subsequently became responsible for Egg banking for the time period concerned in a loan I had with them, which was the same kind of loan I took out with Cahoot - Unsecured Personal Loan.
    Thats the point I make about Barclays, of all the agreements I had they were the oldest and most unlikely to be traced yet they upheld a payment based upon an average spend versus already paid out claimants, which i feel is an honourable act and also a fair one, unlike the charlatans of Santander.
    Regardng whether the account was open at the time Santander took it on, I started receiving letters suggesting I was into them for 19.5 k, which on a loan of 7500 that was paid on time in full for the most part of 4 years or so, only the final 5th year did i have lower pay and problems on the account. These demands for an astronomical fee suddenly dried up, probably once they got their ship in order and realised it was wrong, no apology issued just silence, which at the time was good enough but i guess that may well be around the time all details were destroyed in case i pursued the way that they treated me whilst at a low ebb? who would ever know?

    Anyway, i should receive a cheque for an amount that seems pretty low and unfair in many ways, without trying to divulge too much info i have said more than i would like to on open forums but I know what I have done and who with, the struggles and the ways in which certain things were dealt with and I would recommend people look elsewhere than Santander with regard to their futures. It might all be well and good while things are going ok but they are not helpful or supportive in any way if the stuff hits the fan and your circumstances change for the worse.

    thanks to those who took time, its appreciated and confirms much of what i had been thinking and a little more info was what i asked for and received. cheers...
  • sh5sh5 Forumite
    4 posts
    Name Dropper First Post
    MoneySaving Newbie
    correction--

    "@farfetch, I did not pay the cards off in full every month, mainly due to working hours being cut and my bank at the time - RBS - bouncing payments for being 2 or 3pounds under the amount, thus incurring £35 charges at both the bank and then the credit card = £70 charges next month on already reduced wages, until i found a new job by which time === spiral out of control === lots of interest + lots of charges, therefore, stop me if i am wrong, incurring payments which did have ppi - not provable by myself presently."

      *charges added to loan agreement not cr. cards after the bank bounced payments, I paid as much as poss on the cards although a few times it fell short of full amount and did incur interest on them

  • FarfetchFarfetch Forumite
    561 posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    sh5 said:
    @farfetch, my proof is working for one of the top 5 insurance companies in the world from 5th August 1991, they used this system, so did a lot of banks but thats my word and experiences against anyone elses who say they did not do this and as Cahoot was essentially online banking and Macintosh/IBM compatible computing they most likely did not therefore the files would probably be in .rar form and no doubt destroyed due to the term the law states they must be kept for, as set out by others above.
    I have kept the original agreement but after 20 years cannot pinpoint it, i continue to look for it.
    I did not pay the cards off in full every moonth, mainly due to working hours being cut and my bank at the time - RBS - bouncing payments for being 2 or 3pounds under the amount, thus incurring £35 charges at both the bank and then the credit card = £70 charges next month on already reduced wages, until i found a new job by which time === spiral out of control === lots of interest + lots of charges, therefore, stop me if i am wrong, incurring payments which did have ppi - not provable by myself presently.


    You perhaps missed the point I was making, it's not a matter of proving that institutions did used to do that (I am well aware they did), it's proving that your records were archived in this way and that the bank still has them. If your account with Cahoot was closed before Santander acquired their parent group (Abbey) in 2004, there would be no reason for them to move the data
    As I said, if they did archive them away, they were typically stored by account number which you need to provide for them to find this. There is no point the bank lying about it, particularly when they have paid out billions to customers already, trying to save a few thousand would be pointless, indeed, would risk a huge fine for misleading customers like lenders have been in the past. If they don't have them or can't find them, you need to provide proof you paid it (from statements) - have you done a DSAR to the bank?
  • MK-4MK-4 Forumite
    38 posts
    10 Posts Second Anniversary

    I received an offer from GE Money for a settlement of the Plevin part of my PPI claim.

    It was not clear as there were two letters, and the one with the offer was not to me. So phoned GE Money to find out what needed to be done and was told to send proof of ID so they can make the payment.  My thoughts at the time were that the address / name on the letter were to the company (Wyndan Group Pinnacle) that was involved in the selling of the loan to me.  The ID, as requested and the customer acceptance form were sent back to GE Money.

    A subsequent letter was received from GE Money stating that “the documentation relating to a different account holder was sent to you in error” and “please ignore this letter and acceptance form

    A new letter from GE Money came in and they have rejected the PPI “because GE Money neither sold this PPI to you, nor were they present at the point of sale
    Also, they have rejected the Plevin portion with the statement “in your case, s140A CCA does not apply to the loan agreement. This is because the loan agreement was entered into before 6 April 2007 and was redeemed prior to 6 April 2008.  As such, this aspect of the complaint falls outside the scope of the ‘unfair relationship’ provisions, being s140A CCA and we will not be upholding the complaint

    DATES of LOAN and PAYMENT RECEIVED

    27/08/2004         Loan taken out for £34000 + £9180 for Advanced Payment Protection (Stirling Direct Loans)
    01/09/2004         £34000 deposited into our bank
    20/06/2006         £45531 paid by HSBC to settle the £34k loan
    27/07/2006         £1836 received from GE Capital, assumed as part settlement of the remaining PPI

    QUESTIONS:

     1 – Is it correct that they can reject the PPI portion because they were not present?

     2 – Is it correct that the Plevin portion is outside of the dates?

    Thanks and any help will be greatly appreciated.


  • FarfetchFarfetch Forumite
    561 posts
    500 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭
    1) Yes if they did not sell you anything, how could they be liable for miss-selling you?
    2) Yes if the loan was closed before 6th April 2008 Plevin doesn't apply
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    104.2K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
     1 – Is it correct that they can reject the PPI portion because they were not present?

    Yes.  If one of their staff or agents didn't sell it to you then there is no way they can be liable for complaint about misselling.    It is both correct legally and logically.  The liability for the complaint is with the seller. Not the provider. Unless the provider is also the seller.

     2 – Is it correct that the Plevin portion is outside of the dates?

    Yes. Plevin came about because of a change in the consumer credit act 2006 effective 2008 (although some bits became active in 2007).  S140a is the key bit.   Any credit agreement that was still in existence after April 2008 automatically became subject to S140a.  If it was repaid before April 2008 then s140a didn't exist in its lifetime.  So, a failure under S140a is not possible.

    It would be like someone driving at 40mph in 2006.  Then the speed limit changed to 30mph in 2008.  You wouldn't go after those that drove above 30 2 years earlier.



    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support