We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5
Comments
-
We recently made a claim for PPI compensation with RBS. My wife had this 10 years ago. It was initially on one loan which she then consolidated into a larger loan. Both had PPI on this.
She was in a full time job with a council so had generous sick pay. She was a single mother with 2 kids.
RBS have got back to us with an offer but they have said "the only reason the policy was unsuitable for you was because we recommended a single-premium policy that did not pay a pro-rate rebate if the policy was canceled before the end of the term." They go on to say " we think it is reasonable to conclude that, had we explained the nature of the restrictive cancellation terms you would have taken out a regular-premium policy as the benefits would have provided valuable protection for you".
They have offered us some money but I suppose the question is:
- should I appeal to get more?
- Is there a risk I get nothing if I do appeal?
- what are the best grounds to appeal on?
I'm surprised my wife would have needed anything given her employment status.
Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated!0 -
RBS have got back to us with an offer but they have said "the only reason the policy was unsuitable for you was because we recommended a single-premium policy that did not pay a pro-rate rebate if the policy was canceled before the end of the term." They go on to say " we think it is reasonable to conclude that, had we explained the nature of the restrictive cancellation terms you would have taken out a regular-premium policy as the benefits would have provided valuable protection for you".
That means they have found no evidence of mis-selling but have confirmed that they should not have done it as single premium. The FCA guidelines require them to correct it as if it was monthly premium in cases like this and that is what they are doing.- should I appeal to get more?
The method of calculation is defined by the regulator. Its not a haggle process.- Is there a risk I get nothing if I do appeal?
Not in this case no.- what are the best grounds to appeal on?
They havent found any evidence of wrong doing. What evidence of wrongdoing do you have that you would use to appeal?I'm surprised my wife would have needed anything given her employment status.
Not really. If the PPI wouldnt pay out in addition to employer benefits then its a good complaint reason. if it would pay out in addition to employer benefits then its a weak complaint reason.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.0 -
I suppose its difficult to have evidence of wrong doing especially as this dates back to 2001-2003. The fact that that RBS have been found guilty on so many fronts...?
What kind of evidence could be admissible?That means they have found no evidence of mis-selling but have confirmed that they should not have done it as single premium. The FCA guidelines require them to correct it as if it was monthly premium in cases like this and that is what they are doing.
The method of calculation is defined by the regulator. Its not a haggle process.
Not in this case no.
They havent found any evidence of wrong doing. What evidence of wrongdoing do you have that you would use to appeal?
Not really. If the PPI wouldnt pay out in addition to employer benefits then its a good complaint reason. if it would pay out in addition to employer benefits then its a weak complaint reason.0 -
"Found guilty" of what precisely? PPI mis-selling is not a legal issue and there have been no major court appearances by individual Banks.The fact that that RBS have been found guilty on so many fronts...?
You sound very mis-informed. Accept the Bank's offer, you will not get any more by appealing their decision and only succeed in delaying still further any payout.0 -
I thought the consensus was that banks were guilty of miselling PPI. The guidance on here suggested this was included in the complaint to the bank.
Given the widespread misselling of PPI during this period, I'd be interested in what could constitute evidence of misselling in an individual circumstance.
The amount the bank has offered us doesn't even cover the PPI she paid which seems odd given that this was just not a product she needed at this time. She felt pressured into taking it and that she was misinformed about the benefits. That seems fairly clear cut. I just don't know how to produce evidence that demonstrates this.Moneyineptitude wrote: »"Found guilty" of what precisely? PPI mis-selling is not a legal issue and there have been no major court appearances by individual Banks.
You sound very mis-informed. Accept the Bank's offer, you will not get any more by appealing their decision and only succeed in delaying still further any payout.0 -
We recently made a claim for PPI compensation with RBS. My wife had this 10 years ago. It was initially on one loan which she then consolidated into a larger loan. Both had PPI on this.
She was in a full time job with a council so had generous sick pay. She was a single mother with 2 kids.
RBS have got back to us with an offer but they have said "the only reason the policy was unsuitable for you was because we recommended a single-premium policy that did not pay a pro-rate rebate if the policy was canceled before the end of the term." They go on to say " we think it is reasonable to conclude that, had we explained the nature of the restrictive cancellation terms you would have taken out a regular-premium policy as the benefits would have provided valuable protection for you".
They have offered us some money but I suppose the question is:
- should I appeal to get more?
- Is there a risk I get nothing if I do appeal?
- what are the best grounds to appeal on?
I'm surprised my wife would have needed anything given her employment status.
Any help from anyone would be greatly appreciated!
Were these personal unsecured loans. Did the bank have all the details of the loans. ie dates and amounts? Did just the first loan have PPI?
Did their letter say they were upholding your complaint? Is there a breakdown of their redress offer?
If they are admitting the PPI was unsuitable for you, I dont understand why they are not following the FOS guidelines for redress where a consumer's loan was settled early and refinanced into another loan.
This is the first time where i have heard of a bank suggesting they
"think it is reasonable to conclude that, had we explained the nature of the restrictive cancellation terms you would have taken out a regular-premium policy as the benefits would have provided valuable protection for you".
Can you have a regular premium policy on a loan? Was that option available at the time?0 -
No. Mis-selling was certainly widespread but not every PPI policy was mis-sold. In order to be "guilty", some crime would have to have been committed.I thought the consensus was that banks were guilty of miselling PPI.
Only you can determine how you were mis-sold, I'm afraid.Given the widespread misselling of PPI during this period, I'd be interested in what could constitute evidence of misselling in an individual circumstance.
As already explained in your offer letter and by Dunston, the Bank have NOT found any evidence of mis-selling but have deemed that your method of repayment ("single premium") was unfair. Their offer is simply to correct this error by making good on the extra amount this would have cost you.The amount the bank has offered us doesn't even cover the PPI she paid which seems odd given that this was just not a product she needed at this time.
That's the whole point, you presented a weak "hearsay" complaint for which you cannot present any evidence. You may well have been "pressured" and told inaccurate information, but you cannot prove this. Documentation in the Bank's possession indicates otherwise.She felt pressured into taking it and that she was misinformed about the benefits. That seems fairly clear cut. I just don't know how to produce evidence that demonstrates this.
If you feel strongly that the Bank have not treated your complaint fairly or considered all the evidence available then you can now refer your complaint to the Ombudsman. However, be aware that such a referral will take in excess of eighteen months with no guarantee of a decision in your favour.0 -
-
Were these personal unsecured loans.
- Yes
Did the bank have all the details of the loans. ie dates and amounts? Did just the first loan have PPI?
- Yes, the bank had the details including dates and amounts
- Both the initial loan and then the roll-over loan had PPI
Did their letter say they were upholding your complaint? Is there a breakdown of their redress offer?
- They don't say they are upholding the complaint. They only say they "could have been clearer about the effects of the early cancellation terms would have meant for you in this situation"
- The money they have offered is "designed to put you back in the position you would have been had you taken out a regular-premium policy instead"
If they are admitting the PPI was unsuitable for you, I dont understand why they are not following the FOS guidelines for redress where a consumer's loan was settled early and refinanced into another loan.
- they seem to be saying the only reason it was unsuitable is because they offered a single premium policy. I'm just really surprised given the widespread misselling of PPI at the time that any kind of PPI would be judged suitable.
This is the first time where i have heard of a bank suggesting they
"think it is reasonable to conclude that, had we explained the nature of the restrictive cancellation terms you would have taken out a regular-premium policy as the benefits would have provided valuable protection for you".
Can you have a regular premium policy on a loan? Was that option available at the time?
- I'm not sure but I could check with them if it could be important.0 -
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards