MSE News: Claim PPI now as banks call for deadline

Rhenser

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Oh and when one bank was making £200M a year pure profit out of PPI alone, the average successful claimant received ... Oh ... one hundred and seventy five quid.

What has that got to do with the price of fish? :huh:

Don_Cheadle

Hi,
If I were to make a (Successful) claim against a bank/ credit card organisation then subsequently return to them later down the line to apply for a loan/ credit card or any other service can/ will they be able to use this as a reason for turning down your application and or will they have to mention this?
I have some concerns on this as I may need to use these services in the future...
Thanks in advance for any replies

2sides2everystory

Rhenser wrote: »

What has that got to do with the price of fish? :huh:

Think about it, Rhenser. An average successful total claim of £175 is a clear demonstration when typical upfront premiums were in the thousands that a rip-off was in progress. If you were made unemployed for example, what use is a one time payment of a hundred and seventy-five quid? (IF you were lucky to get any claim at all paid!!)

If the annual clear profit in one UK bank from PPI alone was £200M, what do you think an average annual premium might have been? And bearing in mind that the loans were typically several years long, and the annual PPI premiums were taken upfront by the insurers (actually the banks themselves - read on for another reminder!) what do we think the average front-ended take was on one of these policies? Don't you think it might have dwarfed £175 quid several times over?

And remembering how commercial banks and insurers are (especially when the banks decided to be their own insurers on this one - funny that, eh?), the bigger the claim, the more likely they would wiggle out of it. So an unduly high proportion of attempted claims will never have been successful.

Before "PPI claimant" became the name we started giving people exercising their right to demand back insurance premiums that were wrongly taken, rather than the name we used to give someone who was making a real insurance claim under the terms of a meant to be useful insurance policy, what proportion of attempted "PPI claimants" were given the bums rush do we think?

gadgetmind

2sides2everystory wrote: »

yet the majority of those sold it hadn't a clue how the hell it worked

I think many knew exactly how it worked, and decided to play it safe and take out the insurance, but now fancy a bit of a freebie.

Alpine_Star

gadgetmind wrote: »

I think many knew exactly how it worked, and decided to play it safe and tale out the insurance, but now fancy a bit of a freebie.

Maybe many did but it's irrelevant to the consideration of the rights of those it was genuinely mis-sold to.

2sides2everystory

gadgetmind wrote: »

I think many knew exactly how it worked, and decided to play it safe and take out the insurance, but now fancy a bit of a freebie.

I think you might forgive me if I comment that in this case I don't think you really know sufficient of that about which you are offering your opinion, gadgetmind

I understand PPI about as well as it can be understood as a class of insurance policy and am familiar with many different varieties over many different banks, yet I still have to keep re-questioning my own knowledge on it. I hasten to add that I know very little about making a misselling claim against a PPI policy.

I will allow that many PPI customers could recall a very broad example of what it was supposed to cover e.g. "it pays for my bank loan when I can't because I am sick or unemployed" but they'd instantly be more wrong than right.

The more important question that they should be able to answer if they truly understood exactly how it worked is what are the typical exclusions and exceptions? When typically would it NOT pay in those circumstances that I said many might recall?

Only an expert could make a proper stab at that and the sad fact is that more attempted claims were excluded than accepted.

tifo

just like the test case on current account overdraft charges that was a setup .....

JustAnOpinion_2

I must say I think a deadline is needed. I agree with many of the points others have made.

Firstly obviously the miss selling of PPI was a scandal for the banks and its effect is far reaching effecting numerous people. And compensation for this miss selling is needed for those effected.

However I simply cannot belive that people are not aware that they can claim for PPI you can't watch TV, Listen to the radio or read a newspaper without claims companies being forced down your throat and thats before the cold calling and texts!

A deadline on claim would not put people at any disadvantage if people have yet to claim it is due to a lack of action on their behalf not the banks.

A deadline would finally put a stop to all the claim companies. But personally and most imporatanly in my opinon, banks are having to put vast amounts of money aside to deal with these claims that may or my not come to fruition (Some of these banks, as tax payers we have an interest in them being profitable) A deadline would mean that the whole PPI scandal would finally come to an end banks would be in a financially more stable enviroment with less liabilities. This would then allow more capitol to be aviable for lending, and a greater chance of improved interest rates for savers.

So personally im looking forward to this PPI debarcle to be over with.

-Just An Opionion

angeleyes99

I feel that this shows that the banks haven't really cleaned up their act at all. This is just another way for them to hold onto their obscene profits.

I'm a tax payer too, and therefore have a vested interest in how much all these ppi claims are costing the banks, but my late husband and I were also unfortunately part of the era (late 1980's into the 1990's) where we had a lot of debt and, on being turned down by mainstream lenders for consolidation loans, were snapped up by the firms who used underhand methods to add thousands (in the form of PPI) onto the sums borrowed. They preyed on the desperate.

I worked for the NHS, he worked offshore, both jobs carried adequate sickness /redundancy cover. Neither of us needed it but, sadly, nobody at that time was as 'streetwise' as we all are today, thanks to the internet etc. If you were desperate for a way out and had a form stuck under your nose and were told to "sign here, here and here, and thankyou, the money will be in your account in 24 hours", you did it. We were desperate, due to foolish financial decisions, as were so many others but that did NOT give these firms and banks a right to shaft us.

I've had one swiftly settled complaint with Barclays but I'm fighting on with two other companies who are using the 'time related non-advised sale' excuse to wriggle out of it. Maybe that's legally correct, but it DOESN'T make what they did right or fair. And for that reason, and also on behalf of my late husband who died at a relatively young age of a heart attack indirectly caused by stress, I will fight this to the bitter end.

How dare they try to put a time limit on this. They should be grateful that we can't sue them for the worry,stress & further hardship they caused their customers :mad:

JustAnOpinion_2

Angeleyes99, I agree completly with what you say and I think it should be a much simplar procedure for making claims with less room for banks to wiggle out of paying.

I just feel that if a deffinate date was set where by all claims have to be made by it would drive people to act and make the claims, I see little to no point in dragging on the process for years and years.

So in summary banks should make it easier to claim with far less excuses and avoidence techniques so that the victims of misselling are properly reimbursed. But I see little benefit of dragging the saga on for eterinity surely there has to be a cut of at some point