Implied credit success if PPI taken out..?

oli1983

Hi all,

Thanks in advance to anyone who can help and takes the time to do so.

I've had 2 loans with Natwest both originating from 2004 when I left University to start my first job. The first was £5,000 and the second £12,000. I have found some paperwork relating to the larger loan which has front loaded PPI of £3,427 over the 60 month repayment period. APR of 7.75% was paid. I would expect similar terms for the smaller loan but I cannot find the paperwork.

Furthermore I have a MINT, EGG (now Barclays) and Virgin (MBNA) Credit Cards which all have PPI on them. All taken out around 2006 when the main bulk of the success claims in other forum threads originate. On the Credit Cards it works out to £0.70 per £100 of balance and having struggled with my finances over many years my balances have been quite high over these last 8 years.

In each case, including the loans, I believe that I was missold due to implied success if PPI was taken out. I also believe that with the MINT Credit Card I was given a higher Available Balance if the PPI was taken. The MBNA Card I also believe was pre-ticked (although from reading the other threads it appears that MBNA wriggle out of this one) as this was online (as were all the credit cards).

Is being sold PPI due to implied credit success a mis-sell? In each case I believe this to be the case.

So far I have sent letters asking for information and T&C's on the Loans and credit cards with the letters on MSE.

Has anyone had similar experiences?

Thanks




My question

dunstonh

Is being sold PPI due to implied credit success a mis-sell? In each case I believe this to be the case.

It is but it is the weakest of all complaints because it is unprovable. All the fraudulent complaints say it too. You will say you were told that. They will say no you were not. Nothing on file will support that sort of allegation so it fails (unless there is another identified failure found or you get lucky with an auto payout)

oli1983

This is two fold as the boxes on the online application were pre-ticked so to ensure credit approval I believed thsi to mandatory

dunstonh

oli1983 wrote: »

This is two fold as the boxes on the online application were pre-ticked so to ensure credit approval I believed thsi to mandatory

If it was an online application then how did anyone imply it would improve your chances? No-one else was involved.

[Deleted User]

oli1983 wrote: »

So far I have sent letters asking for information and T&C's on the Loans and credit cards with the letters on MSE.

You will get nowhere with these requests if the loan and credit card accounts are now closed. It does say this in the MSE article...

oli1983

Egg (now Barclays) and MBNA credit card are still live.

I agree no one was there implying anything but the fact remains that the credit facility was needed and by having pre-ticked boxes for PPI indicated it was needed to progress further.

[Deleted User]

oli1983 wrote: »

I believe that I was missold due to implied success if PPI was taken out. I also believe that with the MINT Credit Card I was given a higher Available Balance if the PPI was taken. The MBNA Card I also believe was pre-ticked as this was online (as were all the credit cards).

An online application is classed as "non-advised" as no staff member sold you the cards (or insurance). Therefore any "implied success" you gleaned from the information available would be your own mistake I'm afraid. It appears that you mis-bought rather than were mis-sold.
It's certain that lenders did (at various times) use pre-populated boxes which customers had to de-select if PPI was not required. However, I'm not sure how you'll prove this was employed in your particular case.

The contradictions in your complaint weaken it considerably, I'm afraid.

oli1983

I take on your point but I do believe that the 'pre-ticked' box is wrong and therefore mis-sold.

Having read other forums I think the NatWest loans have a strong case as were upfront premiums added to my loan amount. There appeared to be no cooling off period either...

[Deleted User]

oli1983 wrote: »

I do believe that the 'pre-ticked' box is wrong and therefore mis-sold.

What evidence do you have that there actually was a pre-populated box? If you are relying upon "selective memory" rather than hard evidence your complaint will likely fail.

oli1983 wrote: »

There appeared to be no cooling off period either...

There definitely was a 14 day "cooling off" period. You should certainly not weaken your complaint still further by including this unsubstantiated allegation