Should I, shouldn't I?

sdjames

warwicktiger wrote: »

Clue........

PP Insurance !

The insured paid a premium, made a claim, the insurer paid out. With insurance you do not always get as much out as you pay in, my favourite definition of insurance, is "spreading the risk". Yes I accept that there are m,any instances of mis-selling PPI but in this case the sale seems valid, If I represented the insurer I would be miffed that the ombudsman had ordered any compensation at all.

Can you please explain to me how you feel the sale of PPI was valid?

sdjames

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Yes, but you want the whole policy refunded to you despite having claimed two thirds of it already.

Accept the Bank's offer, you'll get no more.
Redress is defined as putting you back in the position you would have been if you didn't have the insurance.

I understand that Moneyineptitude, it was just a simple question to gauge people's opinions and to give me confidence in making a decision.

[Deleted User]

sdjames wrote: »

Can you please explain to me how you feel the sale of PPI was valid?

You clearly had a NEED for the insurance, as evidenced by you having occasion to claim on it.

It's very likely the Bank have made their offer not because they agree you were mis-sold but to possibly avoid paying a larger fee for a FOS referral.

If your offer is described as a gesture of "goodwill" rather than an actual upholding of your complaint, then the Bank don't agree it was mis-sold and they can actually withdraw their offer if you take it to the Ombudsman.

McKneff

What would have happened if you had not taken out the PPI but they had actually given you the loan. What would you have don about payments if you had not got the PPI.

Up the creek methinks. Paddleless.

GhIFA

OP, the problem you have is that your reason for complaint is a weak one - it is difficult for you to prove (not saying that it wasn't the way it happened, but you can't provide proof that it was the case).

Therefore you are reliant on another outcome, which is either a goodwill offer (which is what you have) or for the complaint to be upheld because the product was unsuitable for you - the fact that you were able to claim on the policy means that second option is all but out of the window. In any case, you would still only be offered the amount you paid in premiums reduced by any amount you received in benefit, which is what you have. Take it.

sdjames

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You clearly had a NEED for the insurance, as evidenced by you having occasion to claim on it.

It's very likely the Bank have made their offer not because they agree you were mis-sold but to possibly avoid paying a larger fee for a FOS referral.

If your offer is described as a gesture of "goodwill" rather than an actual upholding of your complaint, then the Bank don't agree it was mis-sold and they can actually withdraw their offer if you take it to the Ombudsman.

I NEEDED (in fact desperate for) the loan at in 2007, not the PPI. I did not need the PPI as had a stable job when I signed up for the loan. I was told "No PPI, no loan".

PPI isn't obligatory, it's a choice. I should have been allowed to have the loan with or without the PPI.

Don't get me wrong, I was grateful the PPI was there when needed, but it was mis-sold to me at time of loan agreement in 2007.

sdjames

GhIFA wrote: »

OP, the problem you have is that your reason for complaint is a weak one - it is difficult for you to prove (not saying that it wasn't the way it happened, but you can't provide proof that it was the case).

Therefore you are reliant on another outcome, which is either a goodwill offer (which is what you have) or for the complaint to be upheld because the product was unsuitable for you - the fact that you were able to claim on the policy means that second option is all but out of the window. In any case, you would still only be offered the amount you paid in premiums reduced by any amount you received in benefit, which is what you have. Take it.

Thank you.

[Deleted User]

sdjames wrote: »

PPI isn't obligatory, it's a choice. I should have been allowed to have the loan with or without the PPI.

The Bank would counter that you were allowed to have the loan without PPI and that there is no evidence to support your allegations.
That's why your complaint wasn't upheld and you were offered a gesture of goodwill.

Regardless, you should still regard this as a win and simply accept the money you've been offered.