74 year old with PPI

sonofmerton

After claiming and winning my PPI complaints, I asked my Dad (79 now) to check to see if he ever had PPI. He said he didn't. However, upon checking on a loan he got in January 2008 it clearly shows he had PPI included on a loan for £7000. Various reasons for the inclusion were given including life insurance and hospitalization.

He can prove that with the pensions he has he had no need for this and he also has comprehensive life insurance.

He paid off the loan at the end of that year.

Anyone think he has a claim? Thanks.

-taff

Is it life insurance or PPI?

roonaldo

Life insurance is not PPI. Have you checked the policy to see what the age limit is on the life insurance?

sonofmerton

It's PPI. It's listed as such next to the deduction and mentioned twice on the 'contract'.

It just says 'the reason why PPI has been applied is to cover you for hospitalization and to provide adequate life cover'.

roonaldo

In the sense of PPI being all the things you read about on this website (which is accident, sickness and unemployment cover), what you refer to isnt actually PPI. Its a life insurance with hospitalisation which is the mostly useless part of the cover, its listed as a PPI as a lot of firms bundle accident, sickenss, unemployment, life under a banner and give it name. As he was over 65 he didnt qualify for the accident, sickness and unemployment part, hence was only sold the policies he qualified for.

Pensions or not, its not a qualifying factor for having life and hospitalisastion cover so sounds like he was sold the correct policy. If he were sold the policy with the ASU on it, then it would be wrong.

sonofmerton

Two months on brings success. Complaint upheld. One of the reasons given to my dad was his unsuitability due to his age. £1000 win.

dunstonh

A very strange decision. Possibly an auto payout given the amount.

sonofmerton

dunstonh wrote: »

A very strange decision. Possibly an auto payout given the amount.

He settled it early. Hence the smaller amount which I had worked it out to be.

As to whether they investigated it or not in reality, you may be right.

[Deleted User]

sonofmerton wrote: »

As to whether they investigated it or not in reality, you may be right.

Check the wording of the offer letter. If it refers to a "goodwill payment with no admission of liability" then it's definitely an auto-payment without investigation.
Even if it doesn't say this, it's still highly likely.

src007

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Check the wording of the offer letter. If it refers to a "goodwill payment with no admission of liability" then it's definitely an auto-payment without investigation.
Even if it doesn't say this, it's still highly likely.

Some organisations list all their offers as ''goodwill payments'' because they never want to admit to mis-selling even when mis-selling was rampant. Without seeing the documents we can't tell what cover was included. The sentence given stating why the PPI was sold was the 'justification' for the sale not the 'summary of the cover'. This policy could have been mis-sold for the following reasons;
1) The customer didn't know he had it. Perhaps it was what the FOS call an ''assumed'' sale - where insurance was included in the paperwork but skipped over during the meeting with the salesperson;
2) Accident cover could have been included when customer was too old for it;
3) Sickness cover could have been included when the customer was too old for it;
4) Unemployement cover could have been included when the customer was retired;
5) He may have been too old for the life cover;
6) It could have been an unsuitable single-premium policy;
7) The life cover could have been unnecessary if the customer had another life policy in place, which is suggested in the account of the customers circumstances from the sale;
8) There may be other reasons we don't know about that mean it was mis-sold.


Aside from this it must be a strange, weird unfounded decision that was automatically issued entirely out of the kindness of the providers heart.

dunstonh

Aside from this it must be a strange, weird unfounded decision that was automatically issued entirely out of the kindness of the providers heart.

Auto payouts are a commercial decision because it is cheaper to pay out on many cases than it is to argue the toss. Typically on figures of less than £2000.

Looking back at this thread, I am not sure we have the full picture (not that we ever do). Life assurance is not the same as PPI. Yet life assurance is typically monthly premium. The first post indicates it was single premium. Life assurance is underwritten at point of sale (medical questions asked) but PPI is not. You would not expect a life assurance complaint to pay out. Whereas the odds favour a PPI payout.