We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

MSE News: Lloyds 'wrongly rejecting PPI claims'

Options
135678

Comments

  • gadgetmind
    gadgetmind Posts: 11,130 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    SMS received lately.
    Urgent: You still haven't claimed your £3,477 in compensation for the mis-selling of PPI on your credit cards and loans. Reply PPI for details
    My response to this nasty little industry.

    Dear Liar,

    I have never taken out PPI with anyone and you are therefore lying, spamming, PPI ambulance chasing scumbags.

    Please don't contact me again, and ideally cease to exist.

    Thanks

    P.S. I understand that not only do you try and make claims for misselling where someone never had PPI but also for people who took it out because not only did they need it, but they then went on to successfully claim on it!
    I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.

    Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.
  • deelight1972
    Options
    Lorela1 wrote: »
    I am so frustrated with Lloyds. I have put in a claim for PPI I was not aware had been applied to my credit card. They have written to me rejecting the claim saying they have looked at all my eviden: "you completed the application on [enter date]". Aarrgh. So I called them to point out that either they hadn't investigated the complaint very well, or had simply not completed their pro-forma letter very well (we're all human...), and they said they would look into it and write to me again. They've sent me the same letter, with the same blooming square brackets!! If they really are looking into my claim properly, why are they unable to disclose the date the policy was taken out?!

    I have the same unproffessional letter received from Bank Of Scotland, they did put the date in but missed out the very important word which changed the whole meaning of the letter. Quote sentence from PPI rejection letter. ...." Our Sales process clearly shows that there was a problem with the sale of your policy....." Have they left out the word "NOT"?????? They have now clearly stated in black and white that there was a problem with the sale of my PPI but have not upheld my complaint. A copy of of this letter was promptly sent off to the FOS as further evidence of my complaint
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 117,062 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    I have the same unproffessional letter received from Bank Of Scotland, they did put the date in but missed out the very important word which changed the whole meaning of the letter. Quote sentence from PPI rejection letter. ...." Our Sales process clearly shows that there was a problem with the sale of your policy....." Have they left out the word "NOT"?????? They have now clearly stated in black and white that there was a problem with the sale of my PPI but have not upheld my complaint. A copy of of this letter was promptly sent off to the FOS as further evidence of my complaint

    Dont get confident on that part. A typing error does not automatically mean you win your case. Clerical errors happen and the FOS will not rule because of a typo on a response like that.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • SimonD316
    Options
    I've just sent a complaint to the FOS for two loans taken out with PPI when I was a student, and was working less than 16 hours per week. In both cases I was told that taking out PPI would lower the risk, and reduce the APR.

    Lloyds TSB rejected initially. I called the FOS and took advice, if I can prove I was employed less than 16 hours per week it should be upheld. LTSB refused to uphold when I appealed even after I obtained proof I was employed less than 16 hours per week, and told them MBNA had paid out!!

    I also have a complaint with the FOS for my wife's LTSB Credit Card - she's a teacher so has very good benefits, and a secure job - she applied for the CC without PPI, but had a call to confirm the details, and was then told that PPI was compulsary! Our view is that it was rejected without them looking at the paperwork or listening to the call recording. How do we know this? The complaint was rejected in July, and it was september before we received a copy of the application form we asked for, and we have still not had the call records!!

    Personally I think the reason they are rejecting so many complaints is because most people will assume that's the end of the road, and not bother with the FOS.
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 117,062 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    I also have a complaint with the FOS for my wife's LTSB Credit Card - she's a teacher so has very good benefits, and a secure job - she applied for the CC without PPI, but had a call to confirm the details, and was then told that PPI was compulsary! Our view is that it was rejected without them looking at the paperwork or listening to the call recording. How do we know this? The complaint was rejected in July, and it was september before we received a copy of the application form we asked for, and we have still not had the call records!!

    Your wife's job is pretty secure but we have teachers being made redundant in our area. It is not a strong reason. So, dont get confident on that point. If you have evidence of the phone call then you have a strong complaint there. However, if there is no recording then its weak for you.

    Your own complaint is strong though and expect the FOS to rule in your favour unless you bought direct or via mailshot.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Bobjob_2
    Bobjob_2 Posts: 34 Forumite
    Options
    The view from the inside at Lloyds will instil no confidence in any of the claimants. I have a relative who worked in their chaotic claims investigation function, which appears to be managed by Deloitte using young graduates employed on well paid but borderline illegal contracts. The systems used are mind-bogglingly complex, yet the staff are expected not only to learn them in a few days, but to relearn them each time the handling protocol changes, which is several times a year. They are constantly assessed on their work and mistakes are punished with summary dismissal. Each time the procedure has changed it has tightened, excluding more and more claims from being upheld. To an ex-employee it is no surprise that Lloyds is having to throw more and more money at this broken system.

    The issue of PPI claims coming from persons who never had PPI is a complete red herring as they are spotted within five minutes and make no impact on the system. The banks are hoist with their own petard in the investigation process since the products, like so much of the garbage that comes from the financial services industry, are deliberately over complex; designed to be so to obfuscate consumer choice.

    It's time the banks, and their apologists in the rest of the parasite financial community, acknowledged that they have been criminal in selling these useless products and adopted a consumer-oriented policy of rapid redress.
  • Jacqual
    Options
    Bobjob wrote: »
    The view from the inside at Lloyds will instil no confidence in any of the claimants. I have a relative who worked in their chaotic claims investigation function, which appears to be managed by Deloitte using young graduates employed on well paid but borderline illegal contracts. The systems used are mind-bogglingly complex, yet the staff are expected not only to learn them in a few days, but to relearn them each time the handling protocol changes, which is several times a year. They are constantly assessed on their work and mistakes are punished with summary dismissal. Each time the procedure has changed it has tightened, excluding more and more claims from being upheld. To an ex-employee it is no surprise that Lloyds is having to throw more and more money at this broken system.

    The issue of PPI claims coming from persons who never had PPI is a complete red herring as they are spotted within five minutes and make no impact on the system. The banks are hoist with their own petard in the investigation process since the products, like so much of the garbage that comes from the financial services industry, are deliberately over complex; designed to be so to obfuscate consumer choice.

    It's time the banks, and their apologists in the rest of the parasite financial community, acknowledged that they have been criminal in selling these useless products and adopted a consumer-oriented policy of rapid redress.

    I also have knowledge of this and it is absolutely true. There are people being taken on, told they will have 10 days training and get 2 if they are lucky. Then are set impossible targets and dismissed if they fail to meet this target. These are people who have never worked in banking or used any of the old mainframe systems, yet are expected to understand complicated, historic computer systems in a matter of days. It is no wonder that letters are sometimes sent in error when people are only judged on how many cases they clear in a day. I expect some temps are sending letters out rejecting claims to meet targets and hope that the complainant does not take it further. Most of the temps know they will be out of a job come January anyway, so there will be no comeback for them by then. It is a horrible job for any new graduate, but it is a baptism of fire to the world of work I suppose.

    This doesn't help any of the complainants I know, but questions need to be asked by the FOS and the FSA into the handling of this issue by Lloyds.
  • worried48
    worried48 Posts: 492 Forumite
    Options
    Why January - is something changing in January?
    [STRIKE]Vanquis £2994.71[/STRIKE] [STRIKE] Aqua £1941.13[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Capital One £970.77[/STRIKE]
    [STRIKE]Barclaycard £1599.58[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Oxendales £847.62[/STRIKE] [STRIKE] Luma £200[/STRIKE] [STRIKE] Marisota £77.72[/STRIKE] [STRIKE]Overdraft £1491.30[/STRIKE] Loan £7000 Husband's Barclaycard £10,000 [STRIKE] Husband's Mastercard £167.30[/STRIKE] Husband's loan £8409.86 [STRIKE]Husband's Overdraft £1036.32[/STRIKE] Business credit card £3000
  • magpiecottage
    Options
    Bobjob wrote: »
    The issue of PPI claims coming from persons who never had PPI is a complete red herring as they are spotted within five minutes and make no impact on the system.
    That is not true. The complaint still has to be addressed in accordance with the FSA's rules.
    It's time the banks, and their apologists in the rest of the parasite financial community, acknowledged that they have been criminal in selling these useless products and adopted a consumer-oriented policy of rapid redress.
    I am not an apologist for Lloyds TSB or any other bank. However, the fact remains that PPI is not illegal and consumers who have taken businesses to court have lost.

    On the other hand, making a complaint about a PPI policy that never existed is criminalised by the Fraud Act 2006.
  • magpiecottage
    Options
    Jacqual wrote: »
    This doesn't help any of the complainants I know, but questions need to be asked by the FOS and the FSA into the handling of this issue by Lloyds.

    The first problem with that is that FOS can only adjudicate on individual disputes.

    The second is that FOS and FSA staff do not need to be qualified either.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 344.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 450.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 236.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 610.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.8K Life & Family
  • 249.5K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards