PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

-taff

t.smith2005 wrote: »

Hi hope you can help.

I have an attachment of earnings through a court. There is PPI included, (i have the original documents to hand and there is a sheet in there unsigned by both myself and the representative. I was not told about PPI at all, and I wasn't even aware of it until i went looking for the original paperwork.
Where do I stand on getting this removed from the amount owed? I have written to the lender twice and so far they have just ignored me.

Thanks

Tracey

It depends on who sold it to you and when because a lot of cmpanies weren't regulated prior to January 2005.

So....who sold it to you and when?

Insider101

PaulW922 wrote: »

This is not actually correct anymore. HMRC is no longer a preferential creditor and has not been for some years.

And it IS a bad thing if HMRC lose out because that is OUR money

Fair comment on the first point. We'll have to agree to disagree on the second. Bearing in mind HMRC's history of bullying the little man with less resources to try and increase its tax revenues on spurious grounds, all the while allowing big multinational chains to get away with employing shameless multi million corporation tax dodges, I think it's better that they lose out as opposed to the poor customer being charged twice for the tax on their redress. Let's face it how much of that tax is going to go on anything genuinely useful to the public as opposed to, say, MPs inflated expense claims?

fozmcfc

stew1981 wrote: »

Hi

My Mother works for the NHS and have a couple of historic credit cards/loans. she had a company helping her to claim back her PPI but after months of waiting they had got nowhere with this mainly due to her not understanding corrispondants from them. they sent her confirmation that they are no longer operating on her behalf. Which is why she has asked me to help her. I asked her to get all her paperwork back as i would attempt to claim it for her.(i successfully claimed mine back a few years ago).

My main question is :- she was told by this PPI claim company that because she works for the NHS they should not have sold her PPI in the first place. Is this correct before i start work on this task? Also is there a time limit to make a claim. she says on all the accounts she was told to get the account/loan it would help to have ppi.

what is the best way to deal with this?

Thanks for your time.

Not sure, working for the NHS itself, would mean someone shouldn't have PPI, however, depending on the job, it could have been mis- sold.

I would imagine that the NHS employing so many people, would have reasonable sick pay arrangements for many. If I'm wrong, then hopefully people will confirm.

My successful claims, have been largely made on the basis of already having comprehensive sickness cover from my work.

That meant the PPI wouldn't have paid out for me on being sick. Therefore when the bank employee asked me (haha) or should have asked me, about my companies sick pay arrangements, when I said, oh yes fully covered with full sick pay, they should have said, ok, well PPI isn't any good for you, because you already have suitable cover.

stew1981

fozmcfc wrote: »

Not sure, working for the NHS itself, would mean someone shouldn't have PPI, however, depending on the job, it could have been mis- sold.

I would imagine that the NHS employing so many people, would have reasonable sick pay arrangements for many. If I'm wrong, then hopefully people will confirm.

My successful claims, have been largely made on the basis of already having comprehensive sickness cover from my work.

That meant the PPI wouldn't have paid out for me on being sick. Therefore when the bank employee asked me (haha) or should have asked me, about my companies sick pay arrangements, when I said, oh yes fully covered with full sick pay, they should have said, ok, well PPI isn't any good for you, because you already have suitable cover.

According to my mother all NHS employees do have sick pay. she gets full pay if she is ever of sick. so my problem is do i argue they should of asked this or the fact she was told she had to have ppi?

It best i do this myself of get someone to act on my behalf taking most the cash in the proccess?

amersall

A claims co can do no more with a claim than you can, they only charge you.


Make a complaint to the bank, use the fact that there was sick pay in place in her occupation, if there was life insurance, or savings in place then put that, show there was no need for this PPI as the Loan/CC would have been repaid if the worst should happen.

When you make the complaint, make sure you let the bank know that there is no third party interested, send a copy of the letter from the claims co stating they are not dealing with this now.

If the loan had the PPI paid each month in with the loan payment, this is Single Premium PPI, use this as a reason for mis sell.
This is, in effect, a loan on the loan to be repaid to term end with interest, if the loan was settled early, there would have been a rebate of the PPI but the remaining PPI would have been repaid in the settlement figure, this is unfair as the majority of the PPI would have been repaid at this time.

Gonzo33

My husband is forces, and was when he was sold PPI for 3 loans. We wrote to the Natwest (who all loans were with) and they paid out because he would have been paid regardless. They paid out within 8 weeks.

fozmcfc

It's important to remember that PPI isn't just about people claiming it was added without knowledge.

It's very much also about it not being suitable for people, because the person already had suitable cover elsewhere.

It is the responsibility of the company selling the PPI, to make sure it is suitable for the people they are selling it too. Basic questions such as sickness pay from work, redundancy pay, should have been asked about.

If they were it is then the responsibility of the company rep to say ok it's not suitable for you.

Selling it to someone who has and in many cases still have comprehensive cover for sickness and redundancy pay, means either they didn't ask the questions or when told, still advised the the customer it was worth it.

Yes some would say it's up to the customer to read what they are signing, but you wouldn't be signing anything, if you weren't advised to add to your loan/card in the first place.

Insider101

fozmcfc wrote: »

It's important to remember that PPI isn't just about people claiming it was added without knowledge.

It's very much also about it not being suitable for people, because the person already had suitable cover elsewhere.

It is the responsibility of the company selling the PPI, to make sure it is suitable for the people they are selling it too. Basic questions such as sickness pay from work, redundancy pay, should have been asked about.

If they were it is then the responsibility of the company rep to say ok it's not suitable for you.

Selling it to someone who has and in many cases still have comprehensive cover for sickness and redundancy pay, means either they didn't ask the questions or when told, still advised the the customer it was worth it.

Yes some would say it's up to the customer to read what they are signing, but you wouldn't be signing anything, if you weren't advised to add to your loan/card in the first place.

Not necessarily true. It depends whether the product was sold on an advised or non advised basis. If the sale was carried out on an advised basis then the above applies. If it was carried out on a non advised basis then all they have to do is accurately describe what it is and what it does. The buyer is then responsible for making their own decision as to whether it is right for them or not.

treenie01

fozmcfc wrote: »

It's important to remember that PPI isn't just about people claiming it was added without knowledge.

It's very much also about it not being suitable for people, because the person already had suitable cover elsewhere.

It is the responsibility of the company selling the PPI, to make sure it is suitable for the people they are selling it too. Basic questions such as sickness pay from work, redundancy pay, should have been asked about.

If they were it is then the responsibility of the company rep to say ok it's not suitable for you.

Selling it to someone who has and in many cases still have comprehensive cover for sickness and redundancy pay, means either they didn't ask the questions or when told, still advised the the customer it was worth it.

Yes some would say it's up to the customer to read what they are signing, but you wouldn't be signing anything, if you weren't advised to add to your loan/card in the first place.

This has just answered the very question I was going to ask. I've done all my claims (mine were straight forward, I was an agency worker so I should never have been "sold" it in the first place due to the nature of not being in regular employment). However, my husband has just heard back from one of his and they have sent a 3 page letter basically saying that he was not entitled to a refund because even though he wasn't aware he even had it on the loans he was in full time employment so would've considered taking it out.

Now surely if you're in a regular job (and baring in mind these loans were taken out in 1998/2002 when there wasn't much worry about losing your job) and you were taking out your first loans why would you think "oh i know, I get sick pay from work but I'll take a policy out to cover myself in case I get knocked down by a bus tomorrow"... You wouldn't.

I'm just about to take it further to the the ombudsman (they love us at the moment.... we've just got a big payout for a debt management plan but that's a story for another day) but wanted to know how to approach it.

fozmcfc

Insider101 wrote: »

Not necessarily true. It depends whether the product was sold on an advised or non advised basis. If the sale was carried out on an advised basis then the above applies. If it was carried out on a non advised basis then all they have to do is accurately describe what it is and what it does. The buyer is then responsible for making their own decision as to whether it is right for them or not.

Agree in principal.

However, I think, the selling practices even on a non advised basis have been called into question too.

If I was applying online and asked if I wanted PPI, I would expect for some sort of basic questioning to be asked on key issues.

For instance you tick yes to PPI, this opens some questions up, such as.

1/ Do you get sick pay from work yes or no

and

2/ Would you receive redundancy pay yes or no.

Upon ticking yes to either of these, then it should be stated PPI, may not be suitable and therefore it's advised that you contact us, before proceeding. Or if you wish to proceed without contacting us, than tick to agree you have read this advice etc...

Anyone who then still goes ahead without contact, should be excluded from claiming PPI.

In the case of telephone sales, again, no reason why these questions couldn't still be asked and when answered given, suitable advice given.

When all this PPI reclaiming business came about, I thought, well I'm not going to claim, because I know I had PPI.

But then I thought hold on, but surely I was covered anyway and that got me thinking, I was never asked about the key items that PPI covers or if I was, I was not told that I couldn't have used them even if I did claim. That's why I decided to start claiming.