Lloyds TSB rejected credit card PPI claim

DipNet29

I contacted Lloyds and submitted a complaint about mis-sold PPI for my credit card which was taken out in 1997. I was not aware that PPI was optional or that I could have got cover from another provider. They said they would look into the claim. A couple of weeks later I received a questionnaire through the post which they asked me to complete and return. Before I was able to do that, I received a telephone call from them asking me to confirm the reason for my complaint. I confirmed that I did not know that the PPI cover was optional, they confirmed that was all they needed to know and told me that I did not need to complete the questionnaire. I have just received a letter from them rejecting my complaint because they believe that I was correctly sold the PPI and that I did need it. I do not have copies of the original agreement - I was only 20 when I took the policy out! I'm thinking that I should write back and clarify that my complaint is not relating to whether I needed the PPI or not, but the fact that I did not know that the PPI was optional or that it could be with another provider. I also did not know that the phone call I received would be my only opportunity to explain my complaint and therefore have nothing in writing from me to Lloyds setting out the detail of my complaint. Can I ask them to provide me with copies of the paperwork they have received to reach their conclusion? As it was taken out quite a while ago, what do you think my chances are of getting anywhere with this one? Has anyone else successfully got Lloyds to overturn a rejection like this?

dunstonh

. I was not aware that PPI was optional or that I could have got cover from another provider.

There is and never has been any requirement to tell you that you can get it elsewhere. That is a claims company spread lie that some people seem to pick up on and believe. They are not allowed to tell you it is compulsory (unless it is). However, they dont exactly have to go out of their way to tell you it is option.

I was only 20 when I took the policy out!

So, an adult able to make decisions for yourself.

I'm thinking that I should write back and clarify that my complaint is not relating to whether I needed the PPI or not, but the fact that I did not know that the PPI was optional or that it could be with another provider.

Disregarding the latter point as that is irrelevant. What evidence do you have to support your allegations? Where there is no evidence from you and nothing wrong on their side they will look at whether you had a need for the policy or not (indeed, with credit cards, that is where most get upheld). You say you are not complaining about whether you needed it but what you are complaining about is a not a valid complaint reason on one point and virtually unprovable on the other.

Perhaps you should focus on the need point as that is more likely to succeed (assuming you have no need).

Can I ask them to provide me with copies of the paperwork they have received to reach their conclusion?

You can but there may not be much.

Has anyone else successfully got Lloyds to overturn a rejection like this?

No two cases are the same. Some decisions get overturned whilst others do not. We do not have the benefit of knowing your details or the documentation that exists. However, based solely on what you have said, your complaint is very weak. So, without another failing existing that we do not know about, you can see why Lloyds have rejected it.

DipNet29

Thank you, that is helpful.

Where I am coming from is that I have honestly believed that PPI was compulsory but what I cannot remember is why I believe that. I can only assume that it was either never explained that it was optional or that it wasn't mentioned. Lloyds have said it was in the terms and conditions (which I haven't seen) but is that enough? Were they under an obligation to explain in more detail.

What I also don't understand is that they have found in favour of my PPI claim against a loan that I had with them and offered me a settlement for that on the same reasons so what is different about the credit card?

Are there different regulations for credit cards than loans? or is it that the credit card was taken out a long time ago? Is the onus on me to provide evidence that they mis-sold or on them to prove they didn't? What evidence can I provide if I don't have nay paperwork and can't remember the specifics of a conversation from 15 years ago?

dunstonh

Where I am coming from is that I have honestly believed that PPI was compulsory but what I cannot remember is why I believe that.

And without proof of wrongdoing at their end and nothing from you to support that, they wont uphold it.

Lloyds have said it was in the terms and conditions (which I haven't seen) but is that enough? Were they under an obligation to explain in more detail.

No. "sold" cases have a lower requirement than "advised" cases. They cant say what they like but equally the documentation doesnt have to cover the things that an advised case would. Just the key issues.

What I also don't understand is that they have found in favour of my PPI claim against a loan that I had with them and offered me a settlement for that on the same reasons so what is different about the credit card?

Almost certainly they have not upheld the loan PPI on the same reasons. Your complaint may well have been the same reasons but the reason for redress something different. The payout is likely due to being single premium, front loaded and interest charged on it. Rather than being monthly premium. Most loan PPI is paid out on for single premium PPI.

Are there different regulations for credit cards than loans?

Same regulations but they were set up differently. Single premium and charged interest on is considered bad. Monthly premium is how it should be.

Is the onus on me to provide evidence that they mis-sold or on them to prove they didn't?

The onus is on you to provide evidence on allegations which the documentation does not support. If their documentation backed up your allegations then they would pay out. If neither yours or theirs supports the allegations they will reject.

What evidence can I provide if I don't have nay paperwork and can't remember the specifics of a conversation from 15 years ago?

Typcially nothing. That is why most verbal allegations only complaints fail if that is the only reason found.

Realistically, if you cant remember what was said, you cannot be confident it wasnt said. Documentation is key.

MacMc

HI, just looking for some advice or thoughts...
I really don't understand all this PPI stuff and can't seem to get my head round it. Don't even know if this is what I have. When I took my first mortgage back in 2005 with Natwest (still have it ) i was advised to take out some insurance. I remember being told I don't need to take all three but I would need at least the 2. I have paid these by direct debt every month and continue to do, but I actually don't know if they are relevant at all. They are with the then company Scottish Amicable. I wondered what you thought were? Thanks

dunstonh

When I took my first mortgage back in 2005 with Natwest (still have it ) i was advised to take out some insurance.

Quite normal and common sense. It is your house after all.

I remember being told I don't need to take all three but I would need at least the 2.

Did you have a need for the two taken?

I have paid these by direct debt every month and continue to do, but I actually don't know if they are relevant at all.

It would be a good idea to find out.

They are with the then company Scottish Amicable.

They wont be PPI then. Scot AM is a life assurance company and not a general insurance company.

MacMc

Great thanks for the advice. Much appreciated

Jcpower

Hi

Came across this thread and thought I'd enquire how your ppi case progressed from this point. I am in an identical situation just now. Had a credit card with lloyds tsb since 1998. I recently found out I have been paying ppi. Made a complaint based on the fact that i had no idea I was paying this and it never showed up on any of my statements. They also phoned me to confirm story whilst I was very busy at work. Received a letter rejecting my claim a couple of weeks ago and they actually quoted me from this phone call. I would have explained everything a lot clearer had I known this was the phone call that was going to decide my case! I have sent a letter back to them outlining things a lot clearer but just wanted to know how your claim went?
Thanks

dunstonh

Made a complaint based on the fact that i had no idea I was paying this

That is a weak complaint and not very believable. You get monthly statements which would show it on there. You have had 168 statements and you are asking them to believe that you never knew you had it. Unless there is a failing at their end or you can prove it, you would be expected to end up with rejection.

it never showed up on any of my statements.

Lloyds do show it on the statement.

Jcpower

Why would this be unbelievable? PPI was not and never has been explained or offered to me. Also, I have statements and there is absolutely no mention of PPI. I also have a medical condition that I have never been asked to disclose to a bank. I don't believe my case to be weak and I am telling the truth.

dunstonh

Why would this be unbelievable?

You get a statement and transactions appear on that statement. When you reconcile your statement, any transaction you didnt make would see any normal person query it.

Now, someone complaining after a couple of statements is highly credible. However, someone complaining after 168 statements has virtually no credibility and just looks opportunistic.

PPI was not and never has been explained or offered to me.

If you can prove that then you have a good case. What proof do you have?

Also, I have statements and there is absolutely no mention of PPI.

So how does your balance increase when it is being paid then?

I also have a medical condition that I have never been asked to disclose to a bank.

Is it a medical condition that existed at point of sale?
Is it a medical condition that is severe enough to invalidate most or all coverage under the plan or just that particular condition?

I don't believe my case to be weak and I am telling the truth.

Problem is that over half the complaints made are fraudulent and they make the same allegations as you. It may well be the case you are telling the truth but without any evidence of wrong doing that can be provided by you or shown at the firm's end then you are not likely to succeed.