PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

GemLou_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Do you know for certain there was a pre-ticked box? If there wasn't, your complaint is very likely to be declined.

No I don't but I keep reading on here It was a pre-ticked box from 1999 till 2001 and this was April and I would never have ticked the box to have PPI.

So I trust my instincts that it was pre ticked.

Regards

[Deleted User]

GemLou wrote: »

I keep reading on here It was a pre-ticked box from 1999 till 2001

No, these were certainly years when pre-populated boxes were in widespread use, but they were by no means used 100% across the board.

GemLou wrote: »

I trust my instincts that it was pre ticked.

Unfortunately, first the Bank and then FOS will rely on documentary evidence not "instinct" I'm afraid. Egg will have checked as part of their investigation whether the PPI was pre-ticked on your application before issuing their rejection.

Of course you can still refer your complaint to the Ombudsman, but if you expect nothing (other than a long wait of up to eighteen months) you won't be disappointed.

Insider101

GemLou wrote: »

No I don't but I keep reading on here It was a pre-ticked box from 1999 till 2001 and this was April and I would never have ticked the box to have PPI.

So I trust my instincts that it was pre ticked.

Regards

The statement that it required you to positively confirm that you required the cover would suggest not.

Why don't you just ask them?

[Deleted User]

Insider101 wrote: »

Why don't you just ask them?

I don't think GemLou trusts their response...

Insider101

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I don't think GemLou trusts their response...

Fair enough but it strikes me as something that would be pretty difficult to prove either way, even with FOs involvement. GemLou will speculate that they had a pre ticked box they will say no we didn't. If they did then it should have been considered as part of the investigation in any case. FOS would generally uphold pre-ticked boxes unless they believe the customer would have purchased the cover anyway.

The usual drawbacks will apply to this argument. If GemLou didn't actively select it then why did she never query it when it appeared on all the monthly statements? Some people have a good answer to this, some don't but the question is bound to be asked.

-taff

GemLou wrote: »

Hi
sent PPI questionnaire off to Egg and got a letter yesterday - dated Mon 30/9 saying looking into it.

Today got a letter saying no - complaint closed with the following reasons. PPI purchased 12/4/2001 also dated Mon 30/9/13 so they spent a long time looking into it!!
The letter I got says this-
The online sales process at that time:
1. Did not require you to take repayment protection insurance as a condition of obtaining the credit card.
2. Did not provide an advisory service.
3. Required you to positively confirm that you wished to purchase this policy during the online application.
4. Provided full terms and conditions of the. Policy and requested that you read them before submitting.

Can I submit to the ombudsman and I believe 1 was a pre ticked box and 4 the form I think timed out before they could be read.
Don't remember number 3 and unsure about number 2 as if it was pre ticked they kind of did advise in my opinion.
What should I say on my appeal please?
Thanks for any advice given.

I would rather say that they wre known to have used pre-ticked boxes, and that aplications online were laso subject to time outs and that due to the produt being online and the complicated sign in process, you didnt' check your statements as often as you would have done if they were paper ones.


Worth a shot.....


and you don't keep reading that on here, you read that I think they wqere pre-tciekd then, just for the dates of people that have had their complaints upheld with no quibbling. They were not preticked in 2003, but time outs stil happened then.

welshborderer

Good morning,

I'm new to the MSE forum so please bear with me. I would like to raise an issue which I believe has been raised - and answered - in other posts but still interests me: the difference between ppi and mortgage indemnity insurance (mii). If anyone has an informed view i'd be grateful to hear it.

As I understand ppi, it was an optional insurance policy that in effect customers were conned into taking, even though many would never have been able to claim on.

The other day I was looking through old financial papers and at a payment for mii going back to 1993. I had bought a flat in London for £64 and had to pay £940 in mii in order to secure a mortgage.

For those who weren't around at the time, the mortgage market was an interesting place back in the early 90s. It was very difficult to get hold of a mortgage and I think all of the mortgage providers insisted on an mii payment. (Interestingly, mii was done away later by the mortgage providers themselves.)

If you didn't want to pay mii then you didn't get a mortgage. At the time I complained as aggressively as I could to my mortgage provider that even though mii was an agreement between mortgage company and insurance company, it would never be needed because of my personal circumstances. I was a civil servant in an extremely secure job with very generous sickness absence terms. And anyway I come from a generation that ALWAYS paid their bills.

Due to a move with work, I only held the mortgage for two years which meant that mii worked out at nearly £40 a month on top of the mortgage.

The point I wish to raise is this: in contrast to pii where customers were conned into taking an optional policy, I feel with my experience that I was compulsorily forced into paying for an insurance policy that in no way would have been applicable to the situation it covered. Also, there was never any attempt to assess the risk - it was just a lump sum added on irrespective - which I would have thought was an essential part of the insurance industry.

In actual terms, the mortgage company made many millions of pounds out of mortgage customers like me, while I had to spend the first six weeks in my new flat sleeping on the floor because I couldn't afford a bed!

I would be interested in any views.

dunstonh

As I understand ppi, it was an optional insurance policy that in effect customers were conned into taking, even though many would never have been able to claim on.

A high proportion of PPI sales on loans and credit cards are considered mis-sales. So, in that respect it is right. MPPI on the other hand sees most complaints rejected. So, whilst there can be issues with a small number of MPPI cases, it is not seen as suffering the same issues. This was also recognised by the FSA when it did its initial review into PPI.

The other day I was looking through old financial papers and at a payment for mii going back to 1993. I had bought a flat in London for £64 and had to pay £940 in mii in order to secure a mortgage.

MIG payments were still common in 1993. So, that is fine.

The point I wish to raise is this: in contrast to pii where customers were conned into taking an optional policy, I feel with my experience that I was compulsorily forced into paying for an insurance policy that in no way would have been applicable to the situation it covered. Also, there was never any attempt to assess the risk - it was just a lump sum added on irrespective - which I would have thought was an essential part of the insurance industry.

You understanding of the issue is a little wrong. Where a lender insists on an insurance product or any other product as a condition of lending then it is not mis-sold. MIG was a condition of lending. So, not mis-sold. MIG has nothing to do with sickness benefits or unemployment. It was to cover the lender for any shortfall if it had to repossess. Your employment status and sickness benefits do not mean you would not be repossessed. Plenty of people in a similar situation got repossessed whilst still being employed. I know a police officer that got repossessed in the 90s and his benefits are better than yours.

in actual terms, the mortgage company made many millions of pounds out of mortgage customers like me

On an individual basis, a mortgage is not as profitable as people think. The net interest margin banks operate one can be around 1% to 3% depending on interest rates.

I would be interested in any views.

You have no case.

maggymoo

I have made a complaint to CT Capital. I had a £9,000 loan with GE money and was told by them i paid £1,300 in PPI. This week i have got a reply

The letter states this

As the sale took place in an environment which is not regulated by the financial conduct authority and more than six years ago we do not intend to respond in any further detail regarding this matter.

We believe this complaint falls outside the jurisdiction of the financial ombudsman service, however we have provided referral rights.

Can i still send the letter to them i will going to the financial ombudsman if you haven't made me a offer within 14 days?

Any help please
Thanks

-taff

No, because they've told you it was sold prior to Janaury 2005, so you can't complain to the FOS, or rather, you can, but it falls outside of their jurisdiction, so there'll be nothing they can do.

The only thing you can do is complain to the insurer, but that is probably going to fail as well, so don't get your hopes up.

Find out who the insurer was, and make a complaint, but as i said, it's not likely to succeed because you are complaining there was a fault with the sales process, and the insurer didn't sell it to you.