2002 loan potentially with PPI? Help

foundationsmcr

Hi people, I took out a loan around 2002 which I've since paid off consolidated a couple of times and then subsequently paid off. I sent a DSAR request to HSBC and they kindly sent me agreements without charging me. However, in the same response, they told me they only had 6 years worth of records and the original agreement I was hoping for was not included (the one I suspect had PPI included).

This all took place before the Judicial Review conclusion.

My question is, how do I go about establishing whether there was PPI on the original loan I took? I've convinced myself I was advised at the time it would look favourably on my loan application if I took out the PPI, but I was in a job where I received sick pay, so IF I took the PPI, surely I'll have a claim? Problem is, HSBC don't appear to have the records.

Can anyone help?!

Thanks in advance!

[Deleted User]

foundationsmcr wrote: »

. I sent a DSAR request to HSBC and they kindly sent me agreements without charging me. However, in the same response, they told me they only had 6 years worth of records and the original agreement I was hoping for was not included Problem is, HSBC don't appear to have the records.

If a formal SAR request didn't turn up those records earlier than last year, it's even more unlikely to do so now.
Your only recourse is to raid the attic or basement and see if you can find the original loan agreement in your own archives. If that isn't possible, you'll have to content yourself with the notion that you may NOT have had PPI on that loan rather than vice versa

foundationsmcr

Hi, thanks for the swift response.

Surely following the JR, the onus is now on the lender to prove PPI wasn't missold if I believe it was? Would the decision not mean they now have to go back through computer records to demonstrate there was no PPI and/or no missell?

[Deleted User]

foundationsmcr wrote: »

Surely following the JR, the onus is now on the lender to prove PPI wasn't missold if I believe it was?

No, you still have to prove the validity of your complaint. Write another SAR if you truly believe they can "go back through computer records" which they've previously told you they no longer have.

magpiecottage

foundationsmcr wrote: »

Surely following the JR, the onus is now on the lender to prove PPI wasn't missold if I believe it was? Would the decision not mean they now have to go back through computer records to demonstrate there was no PPI and/or no missell?

The JR decision simply indicated that complaints about PPI predating FSA regulation had to be dealt with in a particular way - not to prove a negative for those customers who never had it.

Furthermore, because the Data Protection Act requires firms to destroy personal data it no longer has a legitimate reason to keep it would be unlikely that they have details of long since repaid loans.

Iamfedup

foundationsmcr wrote: »

My question is, how do I go about establishing whether there was PPI on the original loan I took? I've convinced myself I was advised at the time it would look favourably on my loan application if I took out the PPI, but I was in a job where I received sick pay, so IF I took the PPI, surely I'll have a claim? Problem is, HSBC don't appear to have the records.

If your loan was still active in last 6 years they should be able to tell you in one simple phone call if it had PPI. I too am attempting a re-claim for mis-sold PPI from HSBC. I was convinced I didnt have any PPI and thought i may as well just check to be sure. I called them and the person said yes every loan I had with them had PPI and read me the policy numbers out off the screen there and then. He could not tell me what policy number matched up with what loan, but nevertheless they had the record of PPI there on the screen. The most recent loan I had with them was paid off in 2008 and taken out in 2003, Hope this helps.

foundationsmcr

Hey people, I have an update and further questions on this. Can anyone help?

I dug out all documents which demonstrated PPI existed on 2 loans I had. I went on to recall what I could of the loan applicatios and submitted FOS consumer questionnaires on both. I've received an offer based on my submissions, but the wording seems a bit "wooly" and I can't tell if it's a full refund or not.

The offer states "I am unable to respond on a case-by-case basis to the specific issues raised, however, I would like to outline how I intend to resolve the matter. In order to ensure that this matter has not financially disadvantaged you,, I propose to offer the amount of £1339.81. This figure will effectively return the Protection Premiums you have paid along with an element of gross interest"

The offers (from 2 loans) are broken down as follows;
PPI Redress; £53.25
Taxable Interest at 8%: £33.45
Offer: £86.70

PPI Redress: £718.20
Taxable 8% Interest: £537.91
Offer: £1253.11

Total Offer: £1339.81

Personally, I would prefer to see, "Total amount borrowed" "interest charged" and "total amount repaid" before I accept as I don't have the agreement to refer to in order to be sure this is a full refund.

What should I do? Is it worth delaying the process any longer by asking for more info?
Thanks for your help.

[Deleted User]

foundationsmcr wrote: »

What should I do?

Accept the offer, mate, it's full redress.
The "wording" is exactly the same in every uphold letter.

foundationsmcr

I accept the wording is probably standard, I just wanted some reassurance since I've seen examples of the banks "short selling" their first offer in order to reduce their losses.

Thanks for your input.

[Deleted User]

foundationsmcr wrote: »

I've seen examples of the banks "short selling" their first offer in order to reduce their losses.

Really?
I haven't seen any evidence of that, I'm afraid.
As far as I know, the Banks don't ever make a "first" offer at all. It's always a "full and final" offer which, if you don't agree, has to be arbitrated by FOS. It then costs the Bank a hefty fee in addition to paying the redress, so hardly reducing their losses.

No one receives more than full repayment of the PPI policy(minus any rebates for early repayment) plus 8% simple interest. That's full redress.
You seem to doubt every word the Bank says (and I thought I was cynical!;))

dunstonh

I've seen examples of the banks "short selling" their first offer in order to reduce their losses.

Not seen any indication of this. They all seem to be using the FSA published calculation.