Lloyds TSB Denying PPI Existed!!

dunstonh

It could only be ppidisgrace who would think an IFA would represent a bank. IFAs and banks are competitors. Banks do more damage to IFAs in how they do things than most other channels. So, to accuse an IFA of representing a bank if just farcical.

However, it is no more farcical then the other claims you make about your claim companies, many of which break Ministry of Justice guidelines and therefore show you to be a liar and a fraudster.

dunstonh

As my husband had a genuine pre existing medical condition, they should not have sold him the insurance as it wouldn't have covered him.

What was the pre-existing condition? It wouldnt have covered that condition or any that arises from that but it would have covered other conditions. As long as the condition is not significant and virtually removes most of the coverage of the plan, then that would not be a mis-sale reason. If it did, then you have a strong case.

Shame on Lloyds anyway for trying to get out of paying back customers what is rightfully theirs.

They are not. They have said they cannot locate it. And lets be fair, you haven't been able to locate it on your bank statements either so far. So, you are equal in that respect.

MUMZ2BEE

Went to Lloyds Bank on Friday.

We managed to get a copy of his bank statement going back to March 2003.

Surprise, surprise, Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance WAS taken out and it was for £30!!

I dont think Lloyds cant deny this as it appears on the statement!!

Hubby has an underactive thyroid and he also has a pre existing back problem called sciatica, and has suffered from a prolapsed disc also.

He can obtain medical records to prove it!!

Lets see Lloyds deny it now its on his statement!!

dunstonh

Hubby has an underactive thyroid and he also has a pre existing back problem called sciatica, and has suffered from a prolapsed disc also.

He can obtain medical records to prove it!!

He doesnt need to prove it at this stage. They will check with the insurer and see if those conditions are things that impact on the coverage (I suspect not enough).

src007

MUMZ2BEE wrote: »

Went to Lloyds Bank on Friday.

We managed to get a copy of his bank statement going back to March 2003.

Surprise, surprise, Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance WAS taken out and it was for £30!!

I dont think Lloyds cant deny this as it appears on the statement!!

Hubby has an underactive thyroid and he also has a pre existing back problem called sciatica, and has suffered from a prolapsed disc also.

He can obtain medical records to prove it!!

Lets see Lloyds deny it now its on his statement!!

What does the policy document say the insurance is for? Is it accident, sickness and unemployment cover?

I'm sure the fact they couldn't find the policy was a mistake however the number of mistakes Lloyds make doesn't reflect well on them!

Who knows what Lloyds will do next. They're by far the worst bank in terms of doing anything competently!

If you can get hold of the medical information easily, it would be worth sending it into Lloyds. Make sure you provide details from the time of the sale (you have to show its an existing condition when the policy started).

Also keep copies of the medical history because if the complaint goes to the FOS then they'll want to see this, as its probably the strongest reason you have to suggest the insurance was mis-sold.

Mortgage PPI is often a good idea because mortgage payments are so high. The problem was that your husband was left at risk because they would have turned down a claim relating to the condition, had he tried to use the policy and that could have had a major impact on your life.

MUMZ2BEE

Many thanks for the above advice.

Hubby will be foning Lloyds to find out why the are claiming this policy did not exist when it was taken from his current account!!??

I think Lloyds are a joke; they obviously dont want to pay out because the claim is worth almost £3000; we want the money back so we can do our kitchen!

Hubby can easily ask the doctor for a report to show any pre existing condition at the time the insurance was sold; simples.

Hubby has 4 claims going through at the moment regarding PPI.

Lloyds are a disgrace; they even claimed to check their system to find no MPPI~!!??

Its off to the FOS if Lloyds don't comply!!

dunstonh

Hubby will be foning Lloyds to find out why the are claiming this policy did not exist when it was taken from his current account!!??

I think Lloyds are a joke; they obviously dont want to pay out because the claim is worth almost £3000; we want the money back so we can do our kitchen!

Lloyds do not think that way. Some staff member hasnt been able to find a record of the policy. Lloyds has multiple distribution channels and different products and suppliers over the years. This is a pre-regulation case and the records held on it will be very limited compared to post regulation cases. The person checking couldnt find it. That could be human error. It could be that there is limited information on old cases. You have found it and all you need to do is show it to them so they can identify which it is and then deal with the complaint from there. No big drama. No conspiracy theory.

Out of interest, which insurer was it?

I think Lloyds are a joke; they obviously dont want to pay out because the claim is worth almost £3000; we want the money back so we can do our kitchen!

A value of £3000 would indicate that you were paying this monthly for over 8 years. Indeed, that would mean you have been paying it until recently. So, why did you need to go back to statements in 2003?

Hubby can easily ask the doctor for a report to show any pre existing condition at the time the insurance was sold; simples.

But remember that a medical condition does not necessarily invalidate the policy. It has to be a significant medical condition that makes the likelihood of being able to claim on the policy slim.

magpiecottage

This still does not constitute the supposedly damning evidence the OP suggests.

Firstly we need to remember that C&G plc may have been owned by Lloyds TSB but it was run as a separate entity in its own right. The Data Protection Act would have required "Chinese Walls" to C&G knowing about an account with Lloyds TSB and vice versa.

So the OP could have purchase a C&G mortgage at a mortgage broker, or from an estate agent, or from a branch of C&G (they still had them in 2003, I think) and applied for a policy.

All LloydsTSB would have known about it is that there was a direct debit coming out.

Even if the OP had applied for the mortgage in a LloydsTSB branch, the "Chinese Walls" would have meant the section running the current account were unlikely to know what it was for.

We then come to the actual premium - paid, it seems, by direct debit. So it was a monthly premium policy. That is right and proper.

Should the policy have been sold at all? Well the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (which used to regulate mortgage advice) issued "good practice notes" which said, on page 14 (I have a copy) that advisers should actually get borrowers to sign a disclaimer if they did NOT take it.

As far as medical conditions are concerned - yes they might restrict what you can claim for but not, for example, redundancy or unrelated clinical conditions.

I am also confused about the statement that £30 was taken in 2003. If it was one payment then by no stretch of the imagination would it amount to a value of £3,000 after 9 years.

If, on the other hand, you are saying it was taken out every month for 9 years then why on earth did you simply allow it to be collected without question if you did not know what it was?

This may sound harsh but I think any reasonable person would. That in turn means that out of, say, every 100 people making the assertion you are, I think more the at least 51 of them would be trying it on. You might be in the 49. You might be the 1 in 100 that wasn't - but I cannot tell that.

So, if I were looking at your case then in the absence any other evidence I would conclude that it was more likely than not that you were one of the 51 and your complaint should not be upheld.

magpiecottage

src007 wrote: »

They're by far the worst bank in terms of doing anything competently!

Like most organisations, competence at banks is inversely proportional to their size.

Mortgage PPI is often a good idea because mortgage payments are so high. The problem was that your husband was left at risk because they would have turned down a claim relating to the condition, had he tried to use the policy and that could have had a major impact on your life.

The main reason PPI is advocated for a mortgage is that the potential consequences of not having it are so dire. To be upheld after a proper investigation the OP would really need to show that had they known of the medical restrictions they would have taken a chance on not being made redundant and not suffering a different medical condition.

Obviously, if they decide to autouphold that will not apply.