Sent identical loan agreements one with PPI shown one without. Intentional deceit ?

Swiftkidd

I created a thread last week titled 'How reliable & trustworthy is Barclays PPI Prequal (SAR)' and have decided to create a separate thread to follow up from but under a different title so people who have experienced similar can comment and discuss on their experiences.

I mentioned in my previous post my mum was going down to the local branch to enquiry PPI. I already had in my procession 5 loan agreements from a subject access request which came accompanied with a document titled PPI Prequal which lists all current accounts, overdrafts, loans and credit cards featuring a column labeled 'Account PPI Flag' with a simple 'Y', 'U' or 'N' to indicate if payment protection insurance is or was present on each product.

On one of the Barclayloans it showed a 'U' for unconfirmed and a 'Y, Premium Present' on a Barclaycard all the rest displayed 'N' indicating no history of PPI so whilst in the bank the lady typed up my mothers account details and searched if PPI had ever been sold. She couldn't find the Barclayloan that displayed unconfirmed but did find a different Barclayloan which she said PPI had been sold so she printed out the loan agreements and preceded to file a complaint that the policy was not made optional.

I've looked at the loan agreement to the one received from the subject access request and they look identical with the exception one shows ppi was present whilst the other doesn't and the PPI Prequal has failed to flag it on their systems yet our local branch system had flagged it almost immediately. The one from the SAR included a loan settlement agreement and under the T&C's makes no reference to ppi insurance yet on the local branches it shows a separate column next to the taken out loan labeled 'Premium Loan' details and has additional information under T&C's about PPI insurance but does not include a loan settlement agreement:

Amount of Loan ................ .......... Cash Loan ............. Premium Loan
Total Charge For Credit................. £########............. £######
Total amount payable .....................£####### ...............£#######
Monthly repayment ........................£####..................... £####
Number of Repayments .................£### .......................£###
Your monthly repayments will start one month after your loan is drawn. Cash Loan



Is this intentional deceit from Barclay's PPI Department that handled my subject access request which I paid £10 for ?

Product Class ...................... Product Code ............Account PPI Flag
LOANS .................................BARCLAYLOAN .................. 'U'
.................... .......................PROTECTED

LOANS ................................BARCLAYLOAN ........... ........ 'N'
..........................................UNPROTECTED

BC_KT

They don't have the time or motivation to intentionally deceive anyone. As I already said in your other thread about Prequal:

BC_KT wrote: »

Is it 100% accurate? No, but nothing looking back that far into history is ever going to be. Is it a deliberate attempt to fob off genuine complaints? Again, no, it's one of those things they had to put in retrospectively to streamline processes and dig out from the mountain of (often false) PPI claims they are buried under so understandably it isn't pretty.

Really, they get hundreds if not thousands of PPI claims a day, what reason do they have exactly to go out of their way to be deceitful on your particular claim?

[Deleted User]

BC_KT wrote: »

what reason do they have exactly to go out of their way to be deceitful on your particular claim?

It's a pity you didn't leave this thread unanswered on page 2.
I don't think the forum needs a repeat of the same discussion the OP initiated earlier this week (and with quotes from the original thread to boot!).

Swiftkidd

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's a pity you didn't leave this thread unanswered on page 2.
I don't think the forum needs a repeat of the same discussion the OP initiated earlier this week (and with quotes from the original thread to boot!).

On my particular claim ? I am not the first case this has happened too. It has been reported in the news that other people are told no ppi was sold to them to later find out that has not been the case.


What reason do they've to be deceitful ? I don't know maybe they're being awarded or they fear losing their jobs. People who sold the loans had targets and was awarded hefty commission. If they failed to meet those targets they faced improvement warnings and/or disciplinary action.

And you've just given me a reason yourself. Time pressure to fulfill a number of subject access requests.. if they're not permitted enough time then it will negatively effect results. Mistakes will happen whether intentional or not they're dam well responsible.

(text removed by forum team)

[Deleted User]

Swiftkidd wrote: »

What reason do they've to be deceitful ? I don't know maybe they're being awarded

I don't think Bank staff are "awarded" for being deliberately deceitful at all. Nor are they encouraged to be on pain of losing their jobs.

As already pointed out (both here and on your other similarly themed thread) the banks are currently dealing with an avalanche of PPI complaints and mistakes are no doubt made.

Before they lost their court case, the banks did nothing to court favour with customers by deliberately stalling existing PPI complaints and generally "fobbing" off such concerns. However, since then, the ease with which most people successfully receive redress of this insurance is amply demonstrated by the huge amount of money the banks have paid out to date.

There will always be people with historical PPI who can provide no evidence of their policies. If their lender too has no such documentation then their complaint cannot proceed. It's unwise to assume that the Bank is being somehow "deceitful" by saying they no longer have records and paying £10 for a SAR in such circumstances will in the vast majority of cases simply confirm the Bank's stance.

PPI re-claiming is not (and should never be) an exercise in catching the Bank telling lies. Having valid and (preferably) verifiable complaint reasons about an actual policy will result in the concerns being upheld. A FOS referral is there for any such valid complaints which may slip through the net and the Bank pays a large fee for such a referral.

As many as 50% of PPI "complaints" to the Banks are from people who never had the insurance. That might be described as "deceitful".

Swiftkidd

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I don't think Bank staff are "awarded" for being deliberately deceitful at all. Nor are they encouraged to be on pain of losing their jobs.

As already pointed out (both here and on your other similarly themed thread) the banks are currently dealing with an avalanche of PPI complaints and mistakes are no doubt made.

Before they lost their court case, the banks did nothing to court favour with customers by deliberately stalling existing PPI complaints and generally "fobbing" off such concerns. However, since then, the ease with which most people successfully receive redress of this insurance is amply demonstrated by the huge amount of money the banks have paid out to date.

There will always be people with historical PPI who can provide no evidence of their policies. If their lender too has no such documentation then their complaint cannot proceed. It's unwise to assume that the Bank is being somehow "deceitful" by saying they no longer have records and paying £10 for a SAR in such circumstances will in the vast majority of cases simply confirm the Bank's stance.

PPI re-claiming is not (and should never be) an exercise in catching the Bank telling lies. Having valid and (preferably) verifiable complaint reasons about an actual policy will result in the concerns being upheld. A FOS referral is there for any such valid complaints which may slip through the net and the Bank pays a large fee for such a referral.

As many as 50% of PPI "complaints" to the Banks are from people who never had the insurance. That might be described as "deceitful".

Unreasonable delays and mistakes are not acceptable. Banks are still fobbing off customers, delaying payments, making mistakes and fighting for a reclaiming deadline.

Lloyds Banking Group was recently fined by FSA for delaying payments to half a million customers for up to 6 months causing up to 25,000 claimants to drop out receiving compensation in the process to which they gave no reason for the delays.

How many people who was sold ppi have received letters from their banks inviting them to claim ?

There is also this report which show's banks dismissing claims unfairly and denying people had been sold ppi

[text removed by MSE Forum Team]

Also the banks have the influence to reduce the number of people using CMC by actually bothering to write to their customers so it's their own fault CMC are taking advantage. It's also laughable you can make those claims when you claim to have experienced those difficulties yourself in your own ppi reclaim thread causing you to have to complain to the CEO and that was well after the fight in the high court so who are you trying to convince

-taff

Nearly every bank/company/building society has on their PPI complaints instruction page a notice saying you do not need to use claims companies to make a complaint.

When a company is fined for misselling, they write to everyone involved between the times they are fined for. This is also in the news.

I don't very often thank anyone in their posts but I didn make a point of thanking him above because you are labouring under the illusion that the bank [and others] are doing everything to you personally.

You started this complaint under the illusion that you were taking part in some big battle, that you would be lied to, and nothing anyone has told you since that you aren't and you haven't been, not deliberately, has changed your mind.
I notice there was no thanks from you here when you were freely given information by the person you are complaining about above.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/54363919#Comment_54363919


You are beyond helping.

Swiftkidd

-taff wrote: »

Nearly every bank/company/building society has on their PPI complaints instruction page a notice saying you do not need to use claims companies to make a complaint.

When a company is fined for misselling, they write to everyone involved between the times they are fined for. This is also in the news.

I don't very often thank anyone in their posts but I didn make a point of thanking him above because you are labouring under the illusion that the bank [and others] are doing everything to you personally.

You started this complaint under the illusion that you were taking part in some big battle, that you would be lied to, and nothing anyone has told you since that you aren't and you haven't been, not deliberately, has changed your mind.
I notice there was no thanks from you here when you were freely given information by the person you are complaining about above.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/54363919#Comment_54363919


You are beyond helping.

If people are visiting their bank's ppi complaint section then it's almost likely they're proceeding with the complaint on their own.

I haven't heard of one bank that's posted exclusive invitation to their customers that they can complain direct.

No expensive advertising campaign on TV, radio, newspapers, not even dam letter's to their customers only after pressure from groups like MSE, Which, CAG, CAB etc etc.. You make it seem that the banks have had the customers best interests from the start and that they was not up in the high courts fighting to not redress mis sold policy's and what you think would happen if people couldn't turn to the FSA or FOS for an independent review ?

As for everything else [text removed by MSE Forum Team] very little input or response has been given so I shall take my thread onto the CAG

Stupid_Question

Swiftkidd wrote: »

If people are visiting their bank's ppi complaint section then it's almost likely they're proceeding with the complaint on their own.

I haven't heard of one bank that's posted exclusive invitation to their customers that they can complain direct.

No expensive advertising campaign on TV, radio, newspapers, not even dam letter's to their customers only after pressure from groups like MSE, Which, CAG, CAB etc etc.. You make it seem that the banks have had the customers best interests from the start and that they was not up in the high courts fighting to not redress mis sold policy's and what you think would happen if people couldn't turn to the FSA or FOS for an independent review ?

As for everything else with the exception of the two or three forum trolls very little input or response has been given so I shall take my thread onto the CAG

Nearly every bank is writing to customers affected asking if they want to complain!

CAG provides some horrifically bad advice, I'd steer clear if I were you.

Swiftkidd

Stupid_Question wrote: »

Nearly every bank is writing to customers affected asking if they want to complain!

CAG provides some horrifically bad advice, I'd steer clear if I were you.

After much needed pressure from the above list but my local Barclay's branch have still not written to people as they said they're getting round to it - soon. (whilst at the same time are in discussion with the FSA about reclaiming deadlines)

My point being they could have helped reduce the CMC industry by taking charge and leading the way in the first place but instead I recall it being Martin Lewis informing people on the radio and tv not our banks

BC_KT

I think you're making this far more complicated and convoluted than it needs to be. All you really have to do is give Barclays a ring, give them the loan number, and put a missell complaint in. As I understand it you haven't even reached that step yet, you're busy finding flaws with the SARS team who don't even deal with anything PPI related other than to print out and send copies of what's on the system...

Why exactly are you trying to make this so difficult for yourself?