Mortgage Monthly PPI

clift

Mark_123 wrote: »

in a nutshell yes, you have more than a valid claim

Thanks I wasn't sure if this would be as complex as a standard ppi claim can sometimes be.

Do you think a phone call should suffice?

The company is a major - can they decline - I don't think so as there is nothing to prove - am i correct?

Mark_123

what do you mean by a standard PPI claim ?

clift

Hi - sorry -I don't mean as such a standard ppi claim!! - Iam a bit confused - Am I just asking for money back that they shouldn't have taken under the circumstances - is this a ppi claim?

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

Until such time as you actually need it, ANY insurance is "overly expensive".

You know perfectly well that the PPI typically mis-sold by Banks and other lenders WAS overly expensive compared to similar cover available elsewhere.
You also know that I'm not one of those who has advocated going to FOS in a frivolous or fraudulent manner.

magpiecottage wrote: »

It is immoral that the OP has been put out of business because he has to pay fees when he has done nothing wrong.

I agree that the OP (if his story is true) is another victim of the PPI mis-selling scandal.
What I object to is his needless accusations against this website and it's users, especially when there are others far more culpable than us in his demise.

gramochroi

Maybe being over simplistic here, but if a complaint is not upheld against against a broker, financial institution, whatever, why are they charged £500 per complaint?

I understand it works in favour of somebody like me who is making a relevant (I know; I would say that) claim and the institution/individual will pay out if there is doubt rather than risk the £500 fee, but surely things have got to be fair and work both ways.

It really makes me feel for Mark and "the other side".

Mark_123

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You know perfectly well that the PPI typically mis-sold by Banks and other lenders WAS overly expensive compared to similar cover available elsewhere.
You also know that I'm not one of those who has advocated going to FOS in a frivolous or fraudulent manner.

I agree that the OP (if his story is true) is another victim of the PPI mis-selling scandal.
What I object to is his needless accusations against this website and it's users, especially when there are others far more culpable than us in his demise.

Why the hell would I make this up :mad:

You have still not answered my question regarding the PPI I sold but tarnish it with the same brush with no knowledge what so ever of the policy

I have not made accusations against this website as a whole, but will happily redirect you to dozens and dozens of threads on this site that prove my point - wanna play,eh

whats the next big thing now none of these parasites can no longer obtain credit - that is the real truth and the ones guilty know it

I hope one day you are forced off the edge by something you have had no part in whilst trying to make an honest living

[Deleted User]

gramochroi wrote: »

Maybe being over simplistic here, but if a complaint is not upheld against against a broker, financial institution, whatever, why are they charged £500 per complaint?

The Ombudsman is financed in such a way that the complainant gets a free service and the financial institution (or broker) pays the bill regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not.

This might not seem fair in the case of the independent advisor who has to pay for opportunistic complaints (many from claims handlers) which are not upheld, but in the grander scheme of things the idea is that the ordinary man in the street can feel there is an arbiter who is not in thrall to the big lending institutions.

It's also an incentive for lenders to do proper investigations of PPI complaints.

The government set up FOS this way deliberately, unfortunately there are always some who are disadvantaged as a result.

Mark_123

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The Ombudsman is financed in such a way that the complainant gets a free service and the financial institution (or broker) pays the bill regardless of whether the complaint is upheld or not.

This might not seem fair in the case of the independent advisor who has to pay for opportunistic complaints (many from claims handlers) which are not upheld, but in the grander scheme of things the idea is that the ordinary man in the street can feel there is an arbiter who is not in thrall to the big lending institutions.

It's also an incentive for lenders to do proper investigations of PPI complaints.

The government set up FOS this way deliberately, unfortunately there are always some who are disadvantaged as a result.

The same government who advised to sell MPPI :mad:

You have no idea of what you are talking about

[Deleted User]

Mark_123 wrote: »

Why the hell would I make this up :mad:

All I know is that you seem to have very recently joined this forum seemingly to make a series of inflammatory posts about this websitec and it's users. Telling us to "rot in hell" is not the wisest start to your posting history.
I don't know whether your story is true or not. I never said it was false.

[Deleted User]

Mark_123 wrote: »

You have no idea of what you are talking about

I smell troll.
Regardless, you just went onto "ignore".