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

timmybear

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Look who is still in denial.


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.
.

You know what you can do with that. 'No' is the polite answer from me.

What you are asking me to do is not agree with what others are saying. If I agree then I will say 'thanks'.

I didn't come on here asking you to 'get over' the fact that there are people in this world who really, really don't think PPI is / was the so-called 'scam' that it is being made out to be.

It is how I feel.

dunstonh

You know what you can do with that. 'No' is the polite answer from me.

Don't worry about him. He has a posting history like that. He thinks that it is everyone else is to blame and never the individual.

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.

Do please let us know which law has been passed to make that unlawful. Or are you thinking of FSA rules rather than laws?

JimmyTheWig

barbra7539 wrote: »

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!

I agree that mis-selling such as this is mis-selling whether the policy has paid out or not.
But as dunstonh says (in his polite post on this thread), redress from the mis-selling only needs to bring the situation back to how it would have been if the policy hadn't been sold. And that can be done with hindsight. So if the policy has already paid out then the redress from the mis-selling will take that into account.

Imagine I'm in the bookmakers, considering a match between Tottenham and Arsenal. The bookie tells me that he saw all the Arsenal players down the pub last night and so they're not going to be up to much. So I bet on Tottenham.
I later find out that the bookie was lying.
I've been mis-sold to, and am well within my rights to go back to the bookie and ask for my money back.
But what if Tottenham win anyway? Do you think I could still go back and collect my winnings _and_ ask for my money back as well? I don't. The same is true here.

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone is encouraging the behaviour. But it sounded like to me that the OP has no idea, really, what mis-selling was all about. That may be because of the way it's been reported, making it sound like all PPI selling was mis-selling. Or it may just be because the OP didn't understand.
I presume that you agree, without hindsight, that the policies the OP's mum took out were probably poor value. Which suggests that the OP and his mum are not experts. Why then would you expect them to become experts when it comes to the redress of the mis-selling?

If the OP believed they were entitled to redress (because they didn't understand, not because of some moral point) then I don't think there's anything cheeky in the question at all. The cheek of it, from the OP's point of view given that they believed / had been told / believed that they had been told they were entitled, was on the part of the bank who refused.

dunstonh

I presume that you agree, without hindsight, that the policies the OP's mum took out were probably poor value.

Were they poor value? They both paid out and I am sure the money was very important at the time. What would the consequences have been had the insurance not existed and the OP's mum not had the insurance?

I am no fan of PPI and I think a lot of them are poor but I do think the right PPI for the right person is perfectly acceptable.

JimmyTheWig

dunstonh wrote: »

Were they poor value? They both paid out and I am sure the money was very important at the time. What would the consequences have been had the insurance not existed and the OP's mum not had the insurance?

I said poor value without hindsight.

dunstonh

I said poor value without hindsight.

All insurance could be though. It is only valuable if you claim. Until that point it is just an expense. I am not going to try and make a case for PPI as I am not a fan of that product. However, the principle of insurance is you pay to cover a risk and sometimes the cost of covering a risk may end up appearing like a waste of money if you never suffer that risk.

If you want to apply it to PPI though, lets say there was no emergency fund and the person was off work and they couldnt pay the loan. They would destroy their credit ability for years and create a spiral of debts which would not have happened if the PPI was providing a replacement income. That replacement income could save them a lot of money even if the premium spread over the years could end up costing more at the end of the whole period.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

All insurance could be though. It is only valuable if you claim.

The problem was that the amounts typically being charged for PPI far outweighed any potential benefits, especially when the policies were front-loaded onto the loans they were protecting. It wasn't simply that cheaper deals could be had elsewhere.
Poor value is relative, of course, so I don't propose to debate that.

marshallka

Just wanted to add to this about poor value and overall total cost of PPI.

One of our COMPULSORY PPI's totalled near on £9K (with interest added to it). This only covered us for the first 5 years of the loan although the loan was over a lot longer.

The maximum one of us (as this was a joint loan but PPI covered only one!) could claim for an illness as the OP has mentioned would have been £2500..... does that sound good value?

JimmyTheWig

dunstonh wrote: »

I am not going to try and make a case for PPI as I am not a fan of that product.

Then lets agree on that and forget about "value".

[Deleted User]

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Let's say there was no emergency fund to pay for some relatively expensive commitment the person wished to make. So the person sought a loan (not a PPI policy). In many cases the loan payments would destroy the surplus that might otherwise have soon become available for that same person to have found it obviously more sensible to service some more conservative commitment, if any at all at that time.

Let's bolt on to the front end of the expensive loan some single premium PPI because the salesman recommends it. The net result might mean the total repayments of the loan including the capital and interest on the PPI single premium could easily then complete sink any sensible comfort buffer / ability to create a rainy day savings pot without trace (all on an ill-defined "protection" promise). It might hijack all their disposable income for years. They would destroy their ability to plan outside of an arrangement where they too easily had somehow got enslaved to a lender for years. They might indeed then well be tempted with life being too short for suffering extended periods like that which we all know tend to befall a large proportion of those talked into taking PPI with loans. They might then choose not to just go without, but will spend money they don't have and descend into a spiral of debts which would not have happened if the PPI had never been sold in the first place!

Hell their promising lives could have been ruined just by visiting a bank when their brains had still not been developed from teenage mush, enquiring about and being lent a rather silly amount of money compared to what Mr Mannering would have allowed. As you say, they might then (via any of a hundred ways) easily destroy their credit ability for years and create a spiral of debts which would not have happened if the PPI was providing a replacement income which it can't if day after day it is working against the punter not for them. And all because they were seen as rich pickings for a PPI sale.

Then they submit a PPI misselling claim. What's their loss? Just the premium and interest or have they also endured a hard life through once falling for a half-baked spiel by someone who should have known lots better?

Is it a straightforward indeminity or are those almost inevitable spirals dunstonh talks about something more profound that deserves a more sympathetic compensation? Something perhaps similar to awards in compensation for false imprisonment, for example? They don't just work out your nominal loss of salary for the period you were detained, nor do they deduct a sum to reflect the fact you paid no council tax nor grocery bills whilst you were shackled.

Good post. Bravo.