Lloyds PPI claim

worried48

They haven't refused yet, they haven't sent any reply beyond the initial acknowledgment.

This is what we said on the form:
Loan 1
"We were invited to go into the bank to discuss our finances and the bank suggested we should take out a loan to consolidate other debts and to give us some working capital. A loan would be cheaper than credit card interest. We were strongly pressed to take out the loan insurance - we initially refused it but the sales person was not going to take "no" for an answer. We were given the very strong impression that we would not get the loan unless we also agreed to take out this insurance.
We did point out to the sales person that we sere self employed. We also explained that the person being covered (me) was in fact not the person most important to the day to day running of the business. The way we operate our business is that my wife deals with communication with customers and with preparing ***** for sale. My expertise is in the clerical side of the business, I am not knowledgable about *****. My wife is able (and indeed at one stage was obliged to) run the business without me, although she is not as good at doing the paperwork as I am, but I am completely incapable of running the business without her. Therefore the insurance would, as far as we were concerned, be covering the wrong person, its only possible use would be to repay the loan in the event of my death. If my wife were incapacitated, or died, I would be unable to continue the business. If I were to die, she would be able to continue the business without me. We explained this but the sales person continued to strongly urge us to take out this insurance. We would most certainly not have taken out this insurance, that was completely inappropriate for our needs, unless we had been under strong pressure and genuinely thought that we would be refused the loan if we said no."

Loan 2 is similar but with something extra

"She said that we should regard it as a Life Insurance policy for me, and that at my age I would be unable to get £22,000 of Life cover for the amount I would be paying for the PPI. A quick internet seach shows that in fact I would get that much cover for a total af about £1100. Even if it were true that £22,000 of Life Insurance cover would cost a healthy 60 year old almost £8000 for seven years cover, in fact the amount my wife would receive if I were to die has been reducing during the period of the loan and continues to reduce. If I die now, she will not receive £22,000, all that will happen is that the loan is cleared. If I died the month before the loan was paid off, all she would receive would be that month's payment on the loan. Furthermore, my debts would have to come out of my estate and at present it looks extremely unlikely that I would have anywhere near £22,000 to leave (I do not own the house I live in)."

The ombudsman is upholding claims that seem to me to be far weaker than this. (I see in reading it through again that one bit is unclear, but that is what we sent)

[Deleted User]

I can't see anything "cast iron" about those unsubstantiated allegations I'm afraid.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to comment on them point-by-point this evening. I imagine someone will be along to de-construct your complaint shortly.

worried48

O well, in that case I guess the claim will be rejected, but the Ombudsman seems to be upholding an awful lot of complaints which are no more than "thought it was coimpulsory"

dunstonh

worried48 wrote: »

O well, in that case I guess the claim will be rejected, but the Ombudsman seems to be upholding an awful lot of complaints which are no more than "thought it was coimpulsory"

No they are not. Verbal allegations by themselves rarely succeed. The reasons they get upheld or paid out on (the latter not necessarily being an upheld) is due to other reasons. When someone makes a complaint, the firm has to investigate the sale to see if there is any wrong doing. Even in things that were not mentioned. So, whilst some people will put down "thought it was compulsory", it will usually be another reason or an auto payout decision that sees money paid out.

worried48

What I see from the ombudsman site is that the ombudsman decides that the product was wrong for the customer's needs and that the customer would not have purchased the product if he had not been given such a "hard sell" - at least that's how I read a lot of the stories. Will try to find some more when I've time. Didn't the rules change in 2008 so that after that date the banks had a duty to make sure the customer did actually need the product, or something like that?

Anyway we will see. I can honestly tell you (and you can say we are idiots by all means) that we went into the bank the second time, especially, absolutely determined to say no to PPI and said no several times and it was only when the salesperson told the blatant lie about life insurance that we agreed. And yes we did think the loan would be refused if we said no, that is how hard they pushed it.

dunstonh

What I see from the ombudsman site is that the ombudsman decides that the product was wrong for the customer's needs and that the customer would not have purchased the product if he had not been given such a "hard sell" - at least that's how I read a lot of the stories.

Almost but not quite. The vast majority of people have no way of proving if the disturbance was within acceptable limits or not. The FOS wont be able to rule on that in most cases either. However, it will look at the suitability of the product on advised or non-advised cases (but not DIY cases).

Didn't the rules change in 2008 so that after that date the banks had a duty to make sure the customer did actually need the product, or something like that?

No.

Anyway we will see. I can honestly tell you (and you can say we are idiots by all means) that we went into the bank the second time, especially, absolutely determined to say no to PPI and said no several times and it was only when the salesperson told the blatant lie about life insurance that we agreed. And yes we did think the loan would be refused if we said no, that is how hard they pushed it.

If you can prove the verbal discussions or there is any evidence to suggest that what you said it correct then you will expect to win your case. If there is nothing then you are reliant on another failing or auto payout decision.

Remember that all the fraudulent complaints (which are now running at over half the complaints made on PPI) all say the were forced to have, they were told it would make the loan more likely to succeed etc. Anyone can say anything was said. If you went to the police with an allegation, without any evidence no action would be taken. The FOS is the same. It cannot just take your word for it.

meer53

What i can't understand is if you were so dead set against the PPI, why did you agree to it ? You'd already had discussions with an advisor for Loan 1, wouldn't you have been even more wary with Loan 2 ?

worried48

Probably for the same reason as most people - the pressure goes on and on and you desperately want the loan, in the end you become convinced that there is no way you are going to get the loan unless you also agree to the PPI.

worried48

Well, the bank phoned this afternoon, wanted to go through it all on the phone, we remembered most of the grounds for complaint (including the single premium one - thank you whoever mentioned that), forgot one, butwe will see what happens. They haven't yet tied up the form we sent after our original letter with that letter. Anyway they said a decision will be made in a few weeks ....