can you receive ppi if you've made a claim ?

mismeeshy

hi my mum has been mis sold ppi on 3 accounts but unfortunatly had to claim off the ppi as she had cancer in 2008 . we have filed for ppi claim recently and one company says no because she has benifited from the ppi and the other company has offered a small refund , duducting the amount she benifited from when she had to claim . is this right ??? i thought it was about the mis selling in the first place ?

magpiecottage

Why do you say she was missold PPI?

The fact that she made a successful claim would suggest it was suitable for her.

JimmyTheWig

mismeeshy wrote: »

hi my mum has been mis sold ppi on 3 accounts but unfortunatly had to claim off the ppi as she had cancer in 2008 . we have filed for ppi claim recently and one company says no because she has benifited from the ppi and the other company has offered a small refund , duducting the amount she benifited from when she had to claim . is this right ??? i thought it was about the mis selling in the first place ?

It is about mis-selling, you are right. That's mis-selling, not just selling.
If the product was appropriate for your mum then it probably wasn't mis-sold.
The fact that she has used it when she was diagnosed with cancer (sorry to hear about that, btw, hope she's doing ok) suggests that it was appropriate, and so not mis-sold.

But assuming it was mis-sold for some reason (e.g. it was added on without her knowing about it - though I doubt that was the case because she used the policy in 2008 so must have known about it) then she can claim for the mis-selling.

Such a claim will have to put her back in the position she would have been if she didn't take out the PPI.
So lets say she's paid £1000 in PPI but claimed £600 through the policy when she was ill.
If she didn't take out the PPI then she could have put that £1000 in the bank and used £600 of it when she was ill, and she'd have £400 in the bank.
So if the PPI was mis-sold then it is fair for them to refund her £400.


Unless there's more to the mis-selling (and less to the claim) than we know about, I'd take what you've been offered and run off laughing.

timmybear

I have to say -and I mean no offence to any one individual, not least the OP of this message- this is the part of the whole PPI reclaiming situation that makes my blood boil...it is only because it has been ruled as some kind of 'blanket' approach that PPI can be deemed 'miss sold' under a variety of scenarios that makes the policy 'miss sold' at all.

There would have been a time when if one fell ill (and I am genuinely sorry to hear about the OP's mums cancer) and found out that we suddenly were able to claim, we's have thanked our lucky stars for having found at least a shimmer of hope in an otherwise very dark moment in life. More so if what we were able to claim worked out to be more than we'd spent.

The fact that rulings have been made which may a PPI policy 'miss sold' even though it has proven to be of some use seems bonkers. I am also confused by the message by the OP as he/she says as claim was made on the PPI policy in 2008 and yet a claim to say that PPI was miss sold was forwarded only 'recently'. So why not complain in 2008?

I realise this is my own opinion and has no bearing on what could or couldn't have with the OP's situtaion. I am just speachless as to way we as a society have changed in the way we look at our good & bad fortunes.

dunstonh

is this right ???

Talk about compensation chasing at its extreme. Crazy what some people want.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

Talk about compensation chasing

While I agree the OP can have little or no complaint, I don't believe it's our place to stand in judgement.
Can we please not lose track of the fact that this forum was set up to help the consumer, not as an opportunity to rant about the compensation culture which surrounds us.

barbra7539

The way I see it is you were mis-sold if it wasimplied that you had to have it to qualify for a loan or if you didn't the interest rate would be higher - as it was my case!
In these circumstances whether you claimed or not is irrelevant. In many cases cover could have been obtained elsewhere cheaper but customers where coerced into taking the lenders product and charged handsomely for the privilege!

dunstonh

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

While I agree the OP can have little or no complaint, I don't believe it's our place to stand in judgement.
Can we please not lose track of the fact that this forum was set up to help the consumer, not as an opportunity to rant about the compensation culture which surrounds us.

I am quite happy to accept that some people dont understand and need help. However, someone that has been paid out on a claim and then wants to get all the premiums refunded and feel they have a right to it is pushing it and whilst this may be a consumer site, it doesnt mean we should encourage such behaviour.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

whilst this may be a consumer site, it doesnt mean we should encourage such behaviour.

My point was that posters here seemed to be lining up to berate her for even asking the question.
The OP only needed confirmation of what she had already been told by her lenders.

barbra7539 wrote: »

In these circumstances whether you claimed or not is irrelevant. In many cases cover could have been obtained elsewhere cheaper but customers where coerced into taking the lenders product and charged handsomely for the privilege!

Good point, but I don't believe a 100% refund is in order if a claim has been made.

dunstonh

My point was that posters here seemed to be lining up to berate her for even asking the question.

I think it was the cheek of the question. Plus, the use of three question marks gave it emphasis. If there was one question mark, I don't think it would have got the same responses. However, by giving it emphasis like that, it will put people's backs up. Posting style and the way you post can influence responses. The OP came across as wanting to have one's cake and eat it too. We only have text to go on and it maybe the OP didnt know that providing the emphasis like they did would be interpreted that way. Or maybe they really do believe they have some right to get money they are not entitled too and just go compensation chasing where they can.

The way I see it is you were mis-sold if it wasimplied that you had to have it to qualify for a loan or if you didn't the interest rate would be higher - as it was my case!
In these circumstances whether you claimed or not is irrelevant. In many cases cover could have been obtained elsewhere cheaper but customers where coerced into taking the lenders product and charged handsomely for the privilege!

It is entirely relevant. When you are complaining, you are stating you would not have taken the policy out and want it voided as if it never existed. So, if you have been paid a benefit from the policy in a claim it is only right that is taken into account.

You could argue in cases where the value of the claim exceeds the refunded amount that the person complaining ought to pay the insurer as that is what they are asking for in their complaint). However it doesnt happen.

It should also be noted that some firms will automatically uphold complaints where they dont have to pay redress as it makes their complaints stats better without costing a penny.

roonaldo

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Look who is still in denial.

PPI sales are an acknowledged scandal (both sales and missales were managed by the same corrupt managements).

Those companies that sold PPI have no ground to argue the toss. They are owed no fairness in interpretation - they shall count themselves lucky if some fairness in their favour is tolerated. It has been decreed. They sinned. They will pay big time.

Would the likes of dunstonh, magpiecottage, timmybear, Peter999, Dunroamin, _Andy_ please get over it and stop leaving "Thanks" on other deniers' denials, sarcasm and ridicule.

Many consumers are only just learning how they were sinned against. A claim that succeeded for a short period at the end of a long period of premium payment is no bar to a claim for misselling.

Let us all remember that the rates generally charged by credit card issuers and banks generally for PPI were set in cartel fashion and represented massive overcharging compared to rates once easily available via specialist underwriters in the London Market.

Let us all remember that the device for the setting of the sum insured under the majority of these arrangements was often sneaky and useless to many who happened to have a need to claim at the wrong moment in their payment and/or spending pattern.

If proper advice had been intended to have been given then better products would have been designed, sourced, and sold.

Let us not forget that part of the FSA recommendations following the ultimate demise of rogue PPI selling called for cooling off periods after loans were arranged in which no PPI could be sold by the loan arranger. This was too avoid unfair (definitely unlawful now) pressure selling based on cr¤p presentation of cr¤p products at cr¤p prices.

What is laughable is not that the OP should have asked the question, but that in answering, so called industry professionals remain in denial of almost all I have written above.

In this case the PPI was fit for purpose. they want to have their cake and eat it, as the saying goes.