Beware Lloyds Claims. Trick phone calls

wiganwayne

sugarbuzz wrote: »

I had the same call a few days ago and just received a rejection letter today

One of the main reasons stating that the cost of the policy etc. were explained at the time - they weren't! Also stating that everything would have been explained in the documentation - no documents were provided!

dont give up on this one!!

if you dont mind me asking, what questions did they ask you?

sugarbuzz

Pretty much the same questions as they asked you, asking how long I'd been in the job for when it was taken (2 weeks) and when did it end (about 4 months later) and what sort of job (temp contract with sick pay). I told the "advisor" at the time that I was temping and he said that was fine and that it would be best to take the insurance.

wiganwayne

sugarbuzz wrote: »

Pretty much the same questions as they asked you, asking how long I'd been in the job for when it was taken (2 weeks) and when did it end (about 4 months later) and what sort of job (temp contract with sick pay). I told the "advisor" at the time that I was temping and he said that was fine and that it would be best to take the insurance.

my circumstances are a little different, id been at my place of work since 1990 and am still there now and have 6 months full sick pay, savings and a wife who has a decent wage so hopefully i will have a better result.

as for you i would certainly not give up just yet as it does appear you was coaxed into taking out the insurance

spring.babe_2

We had phone call today from Lloyds wanting to ask further questions, hubby said he was too busy working at home and could they put questions in writing - they refused and said they would ring back next week.

At least now we will be more prepared for the phone call and have chance to get all the documents out. would be interested if any one has similar type of calls and results.

juleeeh

I recieved a phone call today in fact from a lady from ltsb asking me to clarify some answers, she was very nice in fairness. i rang the bank to check they do ring people and it is right they do

magpiecottage

timmybear wrote: »

Me trolling? Ok....:rotfl:

With your name I was more put in mind of the story involving Goldilocks than the Billy Goats Gruff.

wiganwayne

recieved a letter this morning from Lloyds saying that they where unable to uphold my claim
one of the reasons they gave was that i did not have any other appropriate means by which i could protect the payments of my credit account
this was despite me informing them that i would have received full sick pay for 6 months then half thereafter.

this isnt a final decision though so do you think i should appeal ??

oscar52

wiganwayne wrote: »

recieved a letter this morning from Lloyds saying that they where unable to uphold my claim
one of the reasons they gave was that i did not have any other appropriate means by which i could protect the payments of my credit account
this was despite me informing them that i would have received full sick pay for 6 months then half thereafter.

this isnt a final decision though so do you think i should appeal ??

I would. And I would ask for a copy of the report/assessment of your financial circumstances they used in order to reach that conclusion.

wiganwayne

oscar52 wrote: »

I would. And I would ask for a copy of the report/assessment of your financial circumstances they used in order to reach that conclusion.

thanks oscar52. im not very clued up on all this ill make sure to put this in my appeal

Common_Sense_2

ppidisgrace wrote: »

Borris The Bear, the customer has appointed someone to work on their behalf, why should the banks choose to ignore this instruction clearly given , a legal document, off course the banks have learned nothing and consider them above the law to ignore their customers instructions,

ppidisgrace wrote: »

and since when can banks pick and choose which legal documents and instructions from their customers they adhere to or not,

so you haven't read the FSA's policy statement 10/12 which states "Firms are not precluded from seeking additional information from consumers"

Shame on you