PPI claims helping things along?

[Deleted User]

Firstly i agree that any money set loose on the economy will help,but alot of ppi claims go straight back to paying off loans
secondly i find it impossible to believe that so many people were so stupid as to be mis-sold ppi.mis- bought maybe

Graham_Devon

Oh and the latest thing I heard.....there may be mis selling claims for insurance. For example, those who bought insurance, but would never, or were never able to claim due to flooding.

Quite right IMO. They are talking about people who stated they were at risk of flooding, the insurer took them on, but then claimed an act of god when trying to claim for flooding. Also applies to those who didn't know they were likely to flood until they did.

Theres T&C's covering acts of god, but it seems these T&C's aren't as water tight (scuse the pun) as the companies may have thought they were. Whether it gets to court is another matter.

Graham_Devon

woodbine wrote: »

secondly i find it impossible to believe that so many people were so stupid as to be mis-sold ppi.mis- bought maybe

You didn't have to be stupid. My dad was sold it, and he wanted it. But when he went to claim as he was written off work, the company requested GP records and got out of paying, as 4 years previous to the claim, my dad had gone to the GP with joint pain.

No one knew at that point that it would end with him being unfit for work 4 years later. Was just prescribed strong painkillers and that was that for a few years.

As he didn't tell the insurance company he had gone to the docs within 2 weeks of doing so, they denied the claim, as they could link it with the problem later.

No one honestly thinks of ringing the insurance company for a joint pain problem, which is put down to a stress injury on a building site though...do they!? It's just one of those regular things, and as the painkillers worked, dad thought nothing more of it, and assumed the GP was correct and that he'd injured something through physical stresse's. The banks have hindsight and history in their favour when assessing claims. People don't, and can only deal with issues as they arrive....you can't predict the future and know that a painful joint for a few weeks will eventually see you written off work.

Cost the bank a lot more to pay the PPI than it would have to have paid out on the claim....so what seemed wholly unfair and unjust to start with, paying loan payments when out of work, actually turned out pretty good.

dunstonh

There is an element of picking on the banks here by the FSA. Now picking on the banks is very popular but if we ignore that for the moment, you have to consider that the banks themselves, whilst they did some wrong doing with some PPI sales, the FSA made it virtually impossible for complaints to be rejected in a number of areas but retrospectively applying rules that did not exist at the time it was taken out.

For over 20 years, PPI was sold the way it was. The SIB, PIA and the FSA had no problem with it. Then one day, the FSA changed its mind and backdated its views.

We know that over half of current PPI complaints are fraudulent. We know that the honest consumer who never bought PPI will be the one that ends up paying for the redress going out to all those making fraudulent complaints.

The FOS and FSA are very Liberal in their thinking. They make a magistrate letting a burglar off for the 10th time because he had a hard upbringing look right wing. They cannot believe that a consumer would lie.

So, yes, genuine complaints should be paid out but these opportunistic complaints getting windfall payments are helping the economy and it wouldnt surprise me if it was done on purpose to get the banks to pay something back to help.

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.....Theres T&C's covering acts of god, .....

One of the greatest myths about insurance.

I believe that 100's of years ago, certain Marine policies did indeed have mention of an act of god.

But it has no legal meaning whatsoever. I guarantee you will never see an Insurance Policy containing an exclusion for 'Act of God'.

Sounds more like a case of the Insurer asking a direct question about 'has the area been subject to flooding in the last 5 years..." [along those lines anyway] and the proposer ticking "No." These often give rise to disputes. But sometimes, the proposer actually made a claim 3 years ago with another company, and so saying 'no' would put him bang to rights.

A._Badger

Personally, it isn't the 'banksters' I want nailing. It's the opportunistic, parasitical lawyers who squat like toads behind the scamline calls I keep receiving from Invite-A-Fraud Ltd, offering to front a claim for me.

Forget the bankers - why isn't the Law Society exercising proper control over its members? After all, that is its excuse for being allowed to operate as a closed shop.

kabayiri

A._Badger wrote: »

Personally, it isn't the 'banksters' I want nailing. It's the opportunistic, parasitical lawyers who squat like toads behind the scamline calls I keep receiving from Invite-A-Fraud Ltd, offering to front a claim for me.

Forget the bankers - why isn't the Law Society exercising proper control over its members? After all, that is its excuse for being allowed to operate as a closed shop.

The large firm I know about isn't really a law firm. It's a call centre with support staff providing the speciality.

They also make money for selling data on. This is possibly one reason why they cast the net wide. Even if someone makes a PPI claim which eventually leads to nothing, they can mine this person's information and sell it on. A so called hot lead referral is worth an easy £32, and there can be several of these passed onto other companies.

I do think these firms encourage the more speculative of claims, which helps explain the 50% fraudulent application level.

Percy1983

I wish I had taken PPI out, I could have had years of not worrying about job loss etc, then after a while just claimed it all back.

Silly me for reading small print and refusing these things, all those years free insurance I could have had.

dunstonh

Percy1983 wrote: »

I wish I had taken PPI out, I could have had years of not worrying about job loss etc, then after a while just claimed it all back.

Silly me for reading small print and refusing these things, all those years free insurance I could have had.

You joke about it but it is happening. A mortgage adviser told me that he had a client phone him up asking if he had PPI. This client was a police officer. The mortgage adviser had not sold him PPI as he didnt need it (but did put in place life assurance). The police officer client then phoned again a few days later as he wanted to make sure and then went on to complain that he was not happy about not being sold it as he was missing out on a payout.

There is also a human side to these things which is nearly always overlooked. Whilst the PPI issue is largely against banks who are faceless and big corporations, there are some small local firms that are getting pulled into this. I had a mortgage adviser a couple of years ago ask me what I thought as he had a PPI complaint come in which was via a claims company. The mortgage adviser hadnt recommended or sold PPI. The letter was full of lies such as having a large savings account balance (there were no saving which is why they needed the borrowing) and that the adviser had told them they had ot have it (yet he told them not to have it and it was never sold) along with the usual BS claims companies give.

The complaint was rejected but the claims company referred it to the FOS. The FOS rejected it. However, the mortgage adviser had to pay £500 as the FOS was involved. He was a relatively new mortgage adviser, young with a family who wasnt earning much at the time due to credit crunch and yet he had to pay £500 due to a fraudulent complaint by a claims company.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I guarantee you will never see an Insurance Policy containing an exclusion for 'Act of God'.

What, like this one, from Esure?

force majeure event
Means an event beyond our reasonable control which includes without limitation fire, flood, inclement
weather, earthquake, accident, civil disturbances, war, rationing, embargoes, strikes, labour problems, delays in transportation, inability to secure necessary materials, delay or failure of performance of any supplier or subcontractor (which cannot reasonably be avoided by us), acts of God and acts of government.

http://www.esure.com/wcm/groups/public/documents/webcontent/wcmprod_es_motor_policy_booklet.pdf