PPI Reclaiming Discussion Part 5

Markp_2

Thank you it wasn't so much the PPI it self but the interest, it seems a bit low

Nasqueron

Markp wrote: »

Thank you it wasn't so much the PPI it self but the interest, it seems a bit low

Interest is done at 8% simple (not compound) per year

BooJewels

I have a bit of an odd dilemma and wonder if anyone can point me in the direction of any information that might assist.

We have had an on-going and several-times-changed mortgage, assorted secured loans and credit cards with the same high street bank for over 30 years. In that time it seems we have had over 10 PPI policies and have made (I think) 4 successful claims in total. One particular policy was taken out when we made some adjustments to the mortgage in 2008. Whilst I have always been happy to accept that the policy was right for us and we have claimed on it, I didn't know until recently that they weren't a compulsory part of the advance.

For various reasons, the meeting where we set this up became memorable, so I have all the docs and my husband I both have clear memories of the appointment. She made it very clear that us getting the advance we wanted at the time was conditional on us taking the mortgage protection policy - she held the docs over the shredder at one point and said she was very happy to cancel the application without it showing on our record if we didn't want to go ahead.

It was only recently that I learned that mis-selling also included the concept that finance was made conditional on taking PPI. So we decided to put in a complaint on this one factor alone I made it clear on the form, covering letter and in phone conversations that I was happy enough that the policy met our needs and we had successfully claimed on it. It was purely on the basis that this woman held our mortgage to ransom in this manner when she wasn't supposed to in 2008.

I have today received a letter making a very decent settlement offer, but it included a paragraph I didn't understand about us still having an active mortgage with cover, but it would be cancelled if we didn't contact them. So I did, to keep the policy, only to find that the PPI aspect of the policy in question has already been cancelled a few days ago and we're no longer covered (still have life and critical illness cover). That hadn't been what we'd wanted. It would also be true to say that I had no idea what I might expect as an outcome, as I knew the value of any previous successful claim would be deducted, so I didn't really expect to gain (at least not much) financially. I think it was a matter of principle really - if she was still with the bank, I wanted her to at least have to explain herself. Presumably she was paid commission on that 'sale'.

So in that respect, knowing that our complaint has been upheld is perhaps/should be enough. But I haven't seen anywhere in the bank documents or any other sources on this subject that this type of complaint would result in the policy being cancelled. They said that they can un-cancel the policy as long as I instruct them very quickly, but obviously, the offer will also be cancelled and we'll get nothing. The chap I spoke to said 'that's how it is, the policy is always cancelled when the complaint is upheld' but couldn't tell me where this was outlined. I wouldn't have claimed if I knew it would jeopardise the policy. I can understand there are many scenarios where this is totally appropriate, but I thought I'd made it very clear that we were happy with the policy - just not with one persons conduct.

Has anyone else made a similar complaint - I just can't find any information on it. All sources cite an offer of finance being conditional on taking PPI as a potential legitimate claim (which their offer seems to uphold), but not how it might be recompensed and the implications of your complaint. I did ask the question when I first enquired of the claim helpline and was told that they wouldn't change any policy without our instruction. But it's also true to say that conversation was difficult due to a heavy accent, her undergoing training and it being a poor line that kept dropping out.

dunstonh

I have today received a letter making a very decent settlement offer, but it included a paragraph I didn't understand about us still having an active mortgage with cover, but it would be cancelled if we didn't contact them. So I did, to keep the policy, only to find that the PPI aspect of the policy in question has already been cancelled a few days ago and we're no longer covered (still have life and critical illness cover). That hadn't been what we'd wanted.

It is normal for it to be cancelled as you are effectively requesting the policy is voided from the start.

I think it was a matter of principle really - if she was still with the bank, I wanted her to at least have to explain herself. Presumably she was paid commission on that 'sale'.

Banks are not holding individual staff to account. They are not informing any staff member if there has been a PPI complaint against a policy they sold. Bank staff were also not paid commission on PPI sales.

But I haven't seen anywhere in the bank documents or any other sources on this subject that this type of complaint would result in the policy being cancelled.

It is quite logical that it has been voided. It is strange to think that you would believe a mis-sale complaint would do otherwise.

. They said that they can un-cancel the policy as long as I instruct them very quickly, but obviously, the offer will also be cancelled and we'll get nothing. The chap I spoke to said 'that's how it is, the policy is always cancelled when the complaint is upheld' but couldn't tell me where this was outlined. I wouldn't have claimed if I knew it would jeopardise the policy. I can understand there are many scenarios where this is totally appropriate, but I thought I'd made it very clear that we were happy with the policy - just not with one persons conduct.

They seem to be acting correctly and fairly then in this case by putting it back and cancelling your complaint.

Has anyone else made a similar complaint - I just can't find any information on it.

Unlikely.

All sources cite an offer of finance being conditional on taking PPI as a potential legitimate claim (which their offer seems to uphold),

It is a valid complaint reason but its a weak one that rarely succeeds on that particular point due to lack of evidence. Many go on to succeed on other points or get captured under the auto-payout floor limit. I am guessing yours is Halifax. They rollover very easily on PPI.

but not how it might be recompensed and the implications of your complaint.

That is because the redress method is defined by the FCA as voiding the policy from inception by returning premiums paid (minus anything paid out in a claim) plus interest.

BooJewels

dunstonh wrote: »

It is quite logical that it has been voided. It is strange to think that you would believe a mis-sale complaint would do otherwise.

Thanks for the reply. Not being a financial adviser myself, it really wasn't 'quite logical' to me. I specifically asked the question when I first enquired and seemingly had an incorrect answer and there's nothing at all outlining this in the bank's web site pages about making a complaint, the leaflet they sent me, or the letters from them. Their letter today said the mortgage still had a policy on it, but it would be cancelled if we didn't call and instruct them otherwise (implying that we could retain it), where in reality, it was actually already cancelled 5 days ago and retaining the policy is conditional on us dropping the claim and not accepting the money.

I can accept that is maybe how it has to be, but this should be outlined before or at least during the complaint process. It would have saved me and them quite some time, effort and expense. I would not have pursued the complaint if I'd know that would be the condition. But maybe I am just 'strange'.

So whilst I'm happy to accept that I just don't understand the process and am probably a little naive about such matters, their own documentation and information has not been very informative in this respect. Perhaps it should be more explicitly stated. Especially as I told them verbally and in writing, that I was happy with the policy
but wasn't happy at the manner in which it was sold. The grounds of my complaint - and we stated as such - was that had it been optional, we might well have got better terms for the same cover by shopping around. We were forced to take their cover where we might have got a better deal elsewhere.

That is because the redress method is defined by the FCA as voiding the policy from inception by returning premiums paid (minus anything paid out in a claim) plus interest.

Do you have a source where this is explained please?

dunstonh

So whilst I'm happy to accept that I just don't understand the process and am probably a little naive about such matters, their own documentation and information has not been very informative in this respect.

The only documentation you should have got is the acknowledgement of your complaint. It would explain what happens next and give you info about the FOS. A fairly template response to ensure it complies with the complaints process.

This would be followed up by the complaint outcome and your right to go to the FOS if you disagree with their outcome.

We were forced to take their cover where we might have got a better deal elsewhere.

Almost certainly the case. Bank products are expensive and low quality compared to the open market. So, take the money and see if you can get an alternative.

Do you have a source where this is explained please?

The FOS have a good guide:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html

BooJewels

Thanks for the link @dunstonh - I've actually already looked through that. I'm still failing to see anywhere where it is explicitly expressed that an upheld claim (and there are many reasons why it might be declared mis-sold) will automatically result in cancelling of the policy. If I'd ever seen that written, I simply wouldn't have pursued it. I only actually rang to ask that question and they started the complaint from that.

I can fully understand how if you were mis-sold a policy where you never could have made a valid claim, then cancelling, refunding everything paid in with interest is the only proper course of action (a self-employed friend got a payout on this basis) and I can also accept that if we were take the payment (which is a refund of what we paid minus the claim value, plus interest), then we have no right to expect the policy to continue, but I wasn't actually expecting to get a refund of payments as I'd already stated we were happy with the policy and didn't want to cancel it. So I'm a little surprised that they have made the offer they have when we put that on the form, the covering letter and told them in person each time we spoke. So perhaps the letter they sent was the wrong result for the information we actually provided.

I suppose the fault is mine in not realising it was an all or nothing type of complaint. I was expecting they'd only consider what we might have missed out on by being forced to take their policy where we might have got better terms - as you suggest - elsewhere. The value of the settlement we were offered today is well over ten times what I thought we might be in-line for - if anything. Whilst I'm totally skint with a leaky roof and turning down this dosh will smart, it wasn't actually about what we might get. I just wanted the inappropriate actions of one member of staff acknowledging.

I'll ring first thing and ask them to reinstate the policy and that will presumably cancel the complaint.

Splinterbungee

Hi all


First of all thanks to everyone on the site and specifically this thread as just from reading this its been really helpful. Secondly I've already submitted a claim via this site and Resolver but am thinking I might have got my wires crossed so am now thinking I might not be entitled to anything - basically is Personal Loan Protector Insurance the same as PPI? It sounds like it should be the same but am now not sure due to my pessimistic nature.


Basically I found a Natwest Personal Loan Agreement from 2008 which spelled out a loan I had but also columns which *I think* shows there was a separate "loan for personal loan protector (PLP) insurance" (£3109 loan - total amount payable says £4281)
This loan (for the insurance) was at 13.35% whereas the main loan (£13K) was at 14.2%


Is this relevant at all to any claim as I feel I might be getting a bit pessimistic - or am I getting confused and this PLP insurance is completely separate to PPI


Cheers - Garry

BooJewels

Garry, as I understand it, PPI (Payment Protection Insurance) is the general term for the type of policy - one that protects your regular scheduled repayments on a financial product, such as loan, mortgage or credit card, should you lose your job or be ill etc. But individual finance companies (banks credit cards etc.) had their own names for their particular products of that nature.

It sounds like it might be NatWest's version of a PPI policy that took the form of a single premium policy - the whole premium of the policy was added to the amount you borrowed, so you paid back some of it each month, along with interest on it too, along with your loan repayments and the interest for that.

[Deleted User]

BooJewels wrote: »

Not being a financial adviser myself, it really wasn't 'quite logical' to me.

I don't think you need to be a financial advisor to appreciate that a complaint that an insurance policy was mis-sold would result in a refund of the amount paid plus interest and the cancellation of the policy.


You effectively complained that you did not want or need the insurance, so why would it continue after you were refunded?

BooJewels wrote: »

I'll ring first thing and ask them to reinstate the policy and that will presumably cancel the complaint.

Of course it will.
However, if you accept the refund plus interest you will be able look for a better policy elsewhere!