This was a shock

alkebab

McKneff wrote: »

How do you know this, do you have access to the OPs statements then.

No, you said "I cant understand why people dont know they have PPI when it is on every single monthly statement that they receive as a separate entry."

Speaking from my experience, having never asked for PPI in my life, I can confirm that it's not on every statement;

In the case of my Black Horse loan, I never received a statement.

In the case of my HSBC loan, they applied the PPI amount, without my permission I must stress, at the start of the loan, therefore each monthly statement simply said 'Loan Plan' and the amount.

Hopefully this explanation has helped your understanding, and will prevent you from making unjustified sweeping statements without all the facts in the future.

Al

dunstonh

Speaking from my experience, having never asked for PPI in my life, I can confirm that it's not on every statement;

It is on credit card statements and modern loans that have statements will show it. Older loans will appear on the credit agreement. It cannot be hidden.

In the case of my HSBC loan, they applied the PPI amount, without my permission I must stress, at the start of the loan, therefore each monthly statement simply said 'Loan Plan' and the amount.

That could only occur if you didnt read what you bought.

alkebab

dunstonh wrote: »

The OP has given us little to go on yet. So, it wouldnt be right to judge anything at this stage. However, some PPI does pay out on NHS workers and if the complaint is a verbal allegation without evidence to support it then on that reason (and assuming no other complaint reasons which succeed) you would expect rejection.

The OP said he/she was convinced they hadn't taken PPI out, therefore I found your statement questioning how the PPI was sold, well, amusing. Because unless he/she's lying, which I think would be an unfair assumption to make, it sounds like it was not sold to the OP at all. It's more likely, like in my case, it was applied without permission.

dunstonh

alkebab wrote: »

The OP said he/she was convinced they hadn't taken PPI out, therefore I found your statement questioning how the PPI was sold, well, amusing. Because unless he/she's lying, which I think would be an unfair assumption to make, it sounds like it was not sold to the OP at all. It's more likely, like in my case, it was applied without permission.

The OP could be telling lies. They could be telling the truth. The fact is that it is unprovable. This is why most complaints that only have an unprovable allegation fail.

You may find it amusing. However, that is how it is.

alkebab

dunstonh wrote: »

It is on credit card statements and modern loans that have statements will show it. Older loans will appear on the credit agreement. It cannot be hidden.



That could only occur if you didnt read what you bought.

I'm well aware of that, but thanks for the refresher. McKneff implied PPI was on everyone's monthly statements, which of course it isn't, and that's what I was highlighting.

Regarding your second point, that's where you're wrong. There are cases where people have declined PPI on a loan, yet it has been added anyway. I happen to be one of those people, and know of at least two others in the same situation.

I've largely ignored this whole PPI fiasco on the basis I've never asked for, or been aware of PPI being added to any of my loans or CCs. It wasn't until a friend, after much persuasion, said I should look into it as I may have unknowing been paying for it.

And here I am.

Perhaps you need to update your knowledge on the subject too?

Al

alkebab

dunstonh wrote: »

The OP could be telling lies. They could be telling the truth. The fact is that it is unprovable. This is why most complaints that only have an unprovable allegation fail.

You may find it amusing. However, that is how it is.

The OP may well be lying through his teeth, but I think it's only fair you assure he's telling the truth, especially as it's his first post. It's a bit harsh making the assumption that someone immediately lying, just because what they're saying doesn't align with your current knowledge (see my post above).

Al

meer53

alkebab wrote: »

Perhaps you need to update your knowledge on the subject too?

Al

Did you notice what Dunstonh's signature says ?

dunstonh

Regarding your second point, that's where you're wrong. There are cases where people have declined PPI on a loan, yet it has been added anyway. I happen to be one of those people, and know of at least two others in the same situation.

Its not wrong. It cannot just appear without you knowing unless you fail to read what you are agreeing to. it is possible the person added PPI hoping you wouldnt notice it. However, the fact is that it would appear on documentation.

The OP may well be lying through his teeth, but I think it's only fair you assure he's telling the truth, especially as it's his first post. It's a bit harsh making the assumption that someone immediately lying, just because what they're saying doesn't align with your current knowledge (see my post above).

Over half of PPI complaints are fraudulent. So, its not fair to assume anything. What it is fair to do is point out the facts on how complaints are viewed.

There are almost certainly a ton of complaints being rejected where someone was mis-sold but the evidence doesnt support the allegation. Just as there are tons of complaints getting paid out on where there was no mis-sale. Neither scenario is ideal but that is the position we are in.

Unless there is another failing identified a verbal allegation with no evidence will fail unless it gets auto paid out.

alkebab

meer53 wrote: »

Did you notice what Dunstonh's signature says ?

I did thanks. And that's why I felt I should give my view.

alkebab

dunstonh wrote: »

Its not wrong. It cannot just appear without you knowing unless you fail to read what you are agreeing to. it is possible the person added PPI hoping you wouldnt notice it. However, the fact is that it would appear on documentation.

Please remember what I was originally challenging. Another poster said;

"I cant understand why people dont know they have PPI when it is on every single monthly statement that they receive as a separate entry."

So I explained about my situation and how it was most definitely not on every statement.

Then you chimed in about credit agreements.

What exactly is your point? Are you saying that it was on my monthly statements, or have we deviated to credit agreements and making assumptions that a person's first person is riddled with lies in order to some how save face?