Payment Protection Cover - can I claim it back

LilDevil

Not sure if I'm in the right place (tried reclaim bank charges as well and couldn't get an answer)!

I asked my Credit Card company to refund them as I had never been given the option to use this when I became unemployed in October 2006 - I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I was told I couldn't use the protection cover and had to still make payments to my card) I felt I had been mis-sold the product as they led me to believe that if I lost my job, I would not have to make any payments for the duration that I was unemployed) - CAN I INSIST THEY PAY IT BACK?

Their letter said the following:

Firstly, I would like to clarify that Payment Protection Cover premiums are not penalty charges that have been applied to your account but an insurance cover that was sold to you over the telephone on 19th May 2006 when you called our Phonebank department. A policy document was then sent to you, which detailed the cover and have an opportunity to cancel, had you wished to, you did not do this.

Had you have wished to make a claim under this insurance policy at any time for unemployment, accident, sickness, Jobcare or the life cover, this would of course have been accepted under the terms of the policy. You have paid for a service over the years, which had you needed, you could have claimed on.

For the reasons above, it is not appropriate to comply with your request for a full refund of the premiums charged to this account.

I hope I have been able to fully answer the points you have raised with us.

Any advice on where I stand would be apprediated!

LilDevil

dunstonh

CAN I INSIST THEY PAY IT BACK?

No.

Insurance is not unlawful and their response correct for what you appear to have written (sounds like you used an unlawful bank charges template).

LilDevil

Yes, I wanted to claim it back at the same time as reclaiming my charges, so I can understand it from that point of view.

Still a bit miffed that they led me to believe that I could claim if I was unemployed, but when that actaully happened, they told me I couldn't, that's why I cancelled it - I feel like they conned me out of £19ish a month for 6 months.

dunstonh

Still a bit miffed that they led me to believe that I could claim if I was unemployed, but when that actaully happened, they told me I couldn't, that's why I cancelled it - I feel like they conned me out of £19ish a month for 6 months.

You could have claimed had you been outside the qualifying period. They have done nothing wrong.

peterbaker

LilDevil wrote: »

Still a bit miffed that they led me to believe that I could claim if I was unemployed, but when that actaully happened, they told me I couldn't, that's why I cancelled it - I feel like they conned me out of £19ish a month for 6 months.

Yes they conned you. You needed to claim from October 2006 and then you realised you couldn't right? So the product was useless for 5/6 months.

Basically, with most policies, there are at least two qualifying periods to satisfy for a claim to succeed:
1. You must have been fully employed or 6 months when you are made unemployed.
2. The policy must have been in force for some minimum period prior to any unemployment, which is a period that varies enormously between providers, and in fact may not even exist with some. (the latter used to be the case with Goldfish I remember).

When they sold you the cover, I am sure they said they would start charging you on your next statement and every month, but did they say BTW your cover is useless for the first 6 months if you have just started a job after a period of unemployment? No I imagine not. So they mis-sold it, because that was the most important aspect.

There is only one reason for ever using Credit Card PPI when there are still I think much better standalone long term PPI deals available from your insurance broker. That is when you are going through a patch of feeling insecure at work and you can see your way through the terms and qualifying period so that a claim scenario might work if the worst comes to the worse.

There is absolutely no point in paying any premium to these sharks until you think you might be in the period between start of period 2 and the date of any unemployment. If there is no period 2 in your wording then you just have to start the cover the day before you know about the likely impending unemployment. I therefore suggest you spend the premium you save this way on buying a crystal ball!

Credit Card PPI was all generally mis-sold once they started using call centres to push it instead of advise upon it. I cannot remember a single conversation with a seller of Credit Card PPI where I didn't know more about it than they did, and picked them up on their lack of knowledge or some breach of regulations in the way they were attempting to sell it or gloss over something. Not one! And I have never sold a PPI policy! I do of course know insurance.

Every time I receive a call from India trying to sell it to me I usually succeed in making them feel sad that they have been asked to sell it into a country where no-one else dares sell it because PPI has been subject of so much mis-selling, and a great deal of bad-press now surrounds it. Because that is a fact. They never call back.

PS The other important qualifier which is not disclosed for all of these PPI covers is that you must also prove you are in receipt of JSA before the insurer will accept a claim. If you get fired and your employer says it was your own fault or if you resigned because you felt you had been constructively dismissed then you will probably not immediately qualify for JSA and therefore your PPI claim will also fail.

MarkyMarkD

LilDevil wrote: »

A policy document was then sent to you, which detailed the cover and have an opportunity to cancel, had you wished to, you did not do this.

I don't believe that this policy was mis-sold, because of the words quoted. It's impossible to read out an 8,000 word set of terms and conditions during a phone sale process. It's far more sensible to give the key facts to the customer on the phone, and then send them the full Ts & Cs in the post for perusal at their leisure.

If they do this, and give a penalty-free cancellation term, then the only person to blame for non-compliance with the Ts & Cs is the person buying the policy.

Whilst peterbaker may be right about the waiting period, six months sounds way too long on most card PPI policies IMHO. It is more likely that the claim was declined because the OP was self-employed or on a fixed-term contract, which are both exclusions which would almost definitely have been clearly listed in the Ts & Cs.

It would be useful if the OP could point out which card issuer this was, and what the basis for declining the claim was.

peterbaker

That's the point Marky ... if they can't properly convey the necessary detail in a sales telephone call then they shouldn't attempt it.

If you buy Motor Insurance over the phone then there is a chance of a dialogue where both sides understand the principal concepts, because all motorists have to buy motor insurance and much of it is commonly structured between providers e.g. all motorists have heard of Third Party Fire & Theft versus Fully Comprehensive and the deductible "excess". Evenso, anyone selling motor insurance over the phone has to be quite carefully trained, and old concepts like "Green Card" which are actually no longer very useful and cause confusion get mis-sold everyday.

PPI has been altered too many times in its short life cycle for any lay person to intuitively understand any of it. There is NO standard product and it is totally abstract anyway, not in anyway linked to damage or loss of anything you can hold in your hand.

It is no wonder that people don't understand it and even for example confuse it with the Sentinel product.

It just isn't good enough to say that if the policy is sent in the post then it is up to the policyolder to reject it. In most cases I have had to bang the table extremely hard to get an actual policy document. In practise they only send out a cross between a marketing leaflet and a summary brochure which is not good enough at all.

I mentioned Goldfish earlier. They actually sent me the wrong wording once when I demanded it. What they posted was for a loan not a credit card, and even I didn't realise it until I studied it in detail with my insurance eye and realised that certain words and concepts were missing.

Credit Card PPI has got a bad name because it was generally mis-sold, just like endowments except that the mis-selling of endowments was largely about the salesman's inability to forecast that the insurers might deliberately pull the rug from under them.

Just like endowments, it's no use trying to defend the industry and say yes well a number were mis-sold but yours old chum was not mis-sold. It's all a proven mess of a product. All bets should be off if there is the slightest complaint about the product not performing because so much of the book of business is tainted that anyone really who says he doesn't trust it should get his money back with no quibble, just like Bernard Matthews Turkey at Asda.

That will reduce the book of insurance business no end, but at least those who are left who haven't complained will be the ones that actually think they need Credit Card PPI and see some worth in continuing with it.

It is an embarassment that parts of the credit card and insurance industry should have devised such an expensive product and allowed it to be sold so badly. It is a further embarassment when they should be seen to be so greedily hanging on to premiums they accepted when there was patently no risk and thus no claim paid.

MarkyMarkD

I agree that, where they is mis-selling because the individual concerned was never eligible for cover (or for most of the cover), e.g. due to self-employment or fixed term contract employment, the provider should refund all premiums paid.

But I don't agree that just because it's impossible to detail all the terms & conditions, it shouldn't be done by phone. That applies to millions of transactions which are done by phone - any holiday purchase, for example, would fall into this category.

peterbaker

Holiday purchase is a bit different don't you think? Firstly it is a main product not a cross-sold add-on. Second, if it is sold by phone, then the customer usually initiates the call and starts with "I would like..." and hopefully a meaningful dialogue begins which relates to a specific brochure or something seen online or a tv programme.

As I said, PPI is completely abstract and a lay person hasn't a hope in hell of writing out what he thinks is covered after his telephone sale and receiving 10/10 for understanding! Neither will he receive any higher marks after the "policy" or "policy summary" arrives in the post and he has "read" it. If you look carefully you will see that lay persons eye's gloss over halfway down page one!

MarkyMarkD

You've obviously not bought a holiday off Teletext or similar, where all you know is "Destination 3* HB £129"

There is no protection in law for people being thick, and there shouldn't be either. If you buy things you can't understand, you shouldn't buy them. If you buy something with a free cancellation period, receive the literature and can't understand it, you should cancel or ask someone who CAN understand it to explain it.

Being thick doesn't mean that everything you buy has, by definition, been mis-sold to you.

LilDevil

Thanks for all your replies guys, I was sold the policy over the phone, if I remember correctly (it was so long ago, I'm only 90% sure about these 'facts'), I'd rang up about something else (May 2006) and they initiated the whole coversation about PPI, they asked if I was employed - I don't remember being asked if it was fixed term or not - I was fixed term at the time but as there was no mention of it, I thought it would be OK - guess I was wrong.

I cancelled the policy as soon as they told me I couldn't claim and thought nothing more about it until I read about reclaiming bank charges and thought I might be able to claim PPI back too.

The c/c was a Lloyds TSB gold gard.

Hope this helps.