PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

dunstonh

fozmcfc wrote: »

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.

Advised cases have a higher requirement. Non-advised has a lower requirement. Some non-advised sales have ended up being classed as advised by the FOS where certain words have appeared in the text. Non-advised still has a basic criteria to achieve but it doesnt need the level you are looking at point 1 (sick pay) isnt an issue with many types of PPI. It is financial need question and non-advised is not there to look at financial need. Point 2 (redundancy) has nothing to do with PPI. So, it isnt a relevant question. Putting the word "advised" in any text is risky for a non-advice sale.

treenie01

So does this mean that when I put my husband's claim to the financial ombudsman I can say that at the time he would not have considered the policy as he received sick pay from work and believed he was in a stable employment (the fact that he still works there 16 years later would suggest this was correct). Also his was on a non-advised basis.

The bank have stated that he was provided with welcome booklets and terms and conditions and that it was for him to determine if the policies would suit him personally. HOwever, surely if he didn't know he had the cover how could he make an informed choice.

[Deleted User]

treenie01 wrote: »

The bank have stated that he was provided with welcome booklets and terms and conditions and that it was for him to determine if the policies would suit him personally. HOwever, surely if he didn't know he had the cover how could he make an informed choice.

If he didn't know he had the cover, it just means he forgot about it I'm afraid. It would have been detailed on the loan agreement or on every credit card monthly statement (you don't actually state which finance he had).

In addition, the fact that he was in permanent full-time employment indicates a need for the insurance-not the opposite. While he may well have had excellent sick pay, he would still need the insurance in the event of redundancy.

Regardless, the Ombudsman may well still overturn the Bank's decision by finding other faults with the sale as part of their investigation. Do realise, though, that the process generally takes in excess of eighteen months.

skintmumofone

AI have a question I just received a call from a company called money matters who used to be part of bright mortgage the guy on phone knew I had taken a loan out with first plus in 2006 and how much etc and asked if I had claimed PPI back which I confirmed I had he then asked a) if they had reduced our payments and b) if they had taken the money off our loan I answered no to both these questions he then said the government had fined FP for misleading customers and lying to them I said I knew all this and that we had got the PPI back but our payments were the same as when started paying in 2006 he maintains he can get our money back + 8% interest and reduce our payments ? Am a bit sceptical though has anyone had any dealings with this company and if so has the outcome been a good one ? X

[Deleted User]

skintmumofone wrote: »

I just received a call from a company called money matters

I recommend you not take cold calls from companies requesting information about your finances.

-taff

skintmumofone wrote: »

he maintains he can get our money back + 8% interest and reduce our payments ? Am a bit sceptical though has anyone had any dealings with this company and if so has the outcome been a good one ? X

He's lying.

You can make a complaint yourself about the PPI interest still being added if you haven't already made a complaint about the PPI.

Thi will, if successful, result in you paying less, on condition that you ask that the payments be removed from the loan, and not just take a cheque. Look for amersalls posts on FP and single premium.

amersall

skintmumofone wrote: »

AI have a question I just received a call from a company called money matters who used to be part of bright mortgage the guy on phone knew I had taken a loan out with first plus in 2006 and how much etc and asked if I had claimed PPI back which I confirmed I had he then asked a) if they had reduced our payments and b) if they had taken the money off our loan I answered no to both these questions he then said the government had fined FP for misleading customers and lying to them I said I knew all this and that we had got the PPI back but our payments were the same as when started paying in 2006 he maintains he can get our money back + 8% interest and reduce our payments ? Am a bit sceptical though has anyone had any dealings with this company and if so has the outcome been a good one ? X

If you used this company, they take a % on the WHOLE PPI as this will be removed from the loan, do this your self.

If you won mis sell and it was not a gesture of goodwill, contact the lender and ask that they look at your account and put it back to the position you would have been had you not taken the PPI, this includes reducing the monthly payment by the PPI monthly amount and removing the whole PPI amount from the loan plus the 8%.

amersall

skintmumofone hi, is this the FP/L.UK that you got the PPI and the cash back from?? if it is then you will not get the loan reset or a reduced payment, and neither will a company ...............if it is not, go for it.

Insider101

fozmcfc wrote: »

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.

It is possible for a product to be missold on either an advised or non advised basis. On a non advised sale it means that people have either not been provided with key information or been provided with misleading information about what the product is and what it does. Your expectations above are unfortunately unrealistic. This is the whole purpose of a non advised sale, they are not required in any way shape or form to advise you or provide any kind of guidance on whether the product is right for you. You are entirely responsible for making that decision.

Insider101

treenie01 wrote: »

So does this mean that when I put my husband's claim to the financial ombudsman I can say that at the time he would not have considered the policy as he received sick pay from work and believed he was in a stable employment (the fact that he still works there 16 years later would suggest this was correct). Also his was on a non-advised basis.

The bank have stated that he was provided with welcome booklets and terms and conditions and that it was for him to determine if the policies would suit him personally. HOwever, surely if he didn't know he had the cover how could he make an informed choice.

This is the problem with complaints such as this. It's all he said-she said. Which is why this complaint reason rarely succeeds. It is not possible for PPI to be "hidden" or for anyone who checks their paperwork not to know they had it.

Saying he believed his employment to be secure is not a valid complaint reason. Insurance is there to protect against unexpected financial mishaps. If he had reason to think at the time of taking out the policy that he was going to be made redundant then it would probably have invalidated the cover.

If he had long term (I.e six months or more) sick pay and can prove it you're best focusing on that. FOS have a habit of believing what they want to believe. I.e if they think PPI was unsuitable for him they will be "convinced" by him, if they think it was suitable they will be "convinced" by the bank