ppi advice

brummy_lad

well,the forms have been posted,will let you know how i get on

brummy_lad

just found this on fo page
For example, where a consumer had good workplace sickness and redundancy benefits, and a stable employment situation, this is likely to add weight to the view that the consumer may not have wanted or needed the PPI cover.

dunstonh

brummy_lad wrote: »

just found this on fo page
For example, where a consumer had good workplace sickness and redundancy benefits, and a stable employment situation, this is likely to add weight to the view that the consumer may not have wanted or needed the PPI cover.

In some cases you have to look at complaint like a set of scales and things will add weight to either side. If things start stacking up on one side then it can tip the scales for or against you.

However, if we look at the whole statement from the FOS in respect of that section it says:

Where our investigation reveals that the policy has not been fully explained, these details add to the overall picture in establishing what difference a proper explanation is likely to have made to the consumer’s decision to take out the policy. Where advice was given, these details help assess whether the policy was likely to have been suitable.

For example, where a consumer had good workplace sickness and redundancy benefits, and a stable employment situation, this is likely to add weight to the view that the consumer may not have wanted or needed the PPI cover. However, if the consumer did not have particularly good workplace benefits or other means of meeting repayments, it is more likely that they would have considered the PPI cover to be helpful.
---

So, you can see that what you pasted was the second part of statement which places it in context. Also, the paragraph mentions "where advice was given" and a couple of earlier paragraphs go on to explain advice and non-advice and how it can impact on the decision. All these things can add weight to either side.

The following are a couple of complaints published by the FOS. In both cases they rejected the complaint but you can see the throught process:

104/10
consumer complains she was advised to take out unnecessary PPI policy on her mortgage
Mrs A wanted to make some extensive improvements to her home. She thought about different ways of borrowing the money she needed, and decided to look into changing her mortgage. She went into the local branch of her building society to discuss her requirements. Following a discussion with an adviser, she took out a new mortgage – and a regular-premium PPI policy, payable on a monthly basis.

Mrs A later complained to the building society that she did not need the policy and should not have been advised to take it out. When the building society rejected her complaint, she referred the matter to us.

complaint not upheld
To get to the bottom of what had happened, we asked Mrs A to tell us how exactly she had reached her decision to take the policy out. We also spoke to the building society. Having listened to both accounts, we decided that Mrs A had been given advice by the building society. So we needed to decide whether this advice had been appropriate for her.

When we looked at the policy documents she had been given, we noted that they set out the cost of the policy separately from the mortgage repayments. And under the terms of the policy, Mrs A’s monthly mortgage repayments would have been made in full had she ever found herself unable to work or made redundant.

Mrs A told us that when she had taken the policy out, she had been the main wage earner in her household, with two dependants. Although she had been in good health and in full-time employment, she had only been entitled to statutory sick pay. And she had no other insurance policies or savings that she could have drawn on to make her mortgage repayments if she had found herself unable to work.

In light of these circumstances, we decided that it had been reasonable for the building society to recommend the policy to Mrs A. After all, she was taking on a substantial financial commitment – and if she had defaulted on that commitment, she would have risked losing her home.

---

104/8
consumer complains about the sale of a PPI policy he took out in 1995
In 1995 Mr S went into the local branch of his bank to apply for a credit card. At the same time, he took out a regular-premium PPI policy, which he would pay for on a monthly basis.

Some years later, Mr S heard something on the radio about the mis-selling of PPI. He thought about his own policy and decided to find out a bit more about it. He couldn’t find the original paperwork he had been sent, so he looked back at some credit card statements and noticed that he was still paying a monthly premium.

Although he couldn’t remember many details about how he had come to take the policy out, he was still concerned about it. He decided to complain to his bank, saying that it had mis-sold him the policy. When his bank rejected his complaint, he referred the matter to us.

complaint not upheld
When we investigate any complaint, we have to make sure we assess the evidence carefully to come to a fair decision. Unfortunately, in this case there was only limited paperwork for us to go on – and the recollections of what actually happened on both sides were sketchy.

Even so, we were able to build up a picture of some of the basic facts by looking into Mr S’s personal and financial circumstances at the time. When he had taken the policy out, Mr S had been the main wage earner in his family and had three dependants. He had only been entitled to limited sick pay and would have had no other way of making his repayments if he had found himself unable to work.

We also asked the bank to show us an example of the paperwork that would have been given to customers like Mr S, who took out a policy in its branches in 1995. This included the policy document that set out the cost of the cover – and the amount that would be paid in the event of a successful claim.

We noted that in the event of a successful claim, Mr S’s outstanding credit card balance would have been reduced by 10% each month – and repaid in full after 12 months.

We also checked whether there were any other reasons why the policy may not have been suitable for Mr S. We found that he did not have any pre-existing medical conditions or any other issues that would mean he could not benefit fully from the cover.

So while we couldn’t establish exactly what Mr S had been told when he took the policy out, taking into account his personal circumstances and the benefits of the policy, there was little to suggest that it might not have been suitable for him at the time. In these circumstances, we did not uphold the complaint.

magpiecottage

brummy_lad wrote: »

i am still working and can see no change in the near future,

I set off on a journey last year and could see no reason why I would not be home in a couple of hours. Two weeks, two hospitals and two operations later I was brought home and hobbled in on crutches.

The whole point about insurance is that it covers you against the unexpected misfortune.

worried48

There are also a lot of cases upheld, you'll just have to wait and see. I am waiting on two - which between them would, if upheld, pay off more than half of our total household debt. The wait is killing me!

brummy_lad

how long does it take on average?

-taff

8 - 16 weeks

brummy_lad

just to let you all know i had a letter of the bank saying i am entitled to redress and recieved a cheque this morning for £10.013:j:j


thanks martin:T:T

amersall

brummy_lad wrote: »

just to let you all know i had a letter of the bank saying i am entitled to redress and recieved a cheque this morning for £10.013:j:j


thanks martin:T:T

:j:jGood for you for going for it :beer: