Refusal from Co-op Bank - shall I appeal?

_Andy_

No it's not a case for mis-selling.

willievergetthere?

I've found this:

Do you have a joint loan, but the insurance is only in one name?
If you've checked your paperwork and have found all names responsible for paying back the loan are not covered under the insurance - which is unfair in itself as either could be chased for money if you get behind with payments

Andy, do you not think this is valid then?

willievergetthere?

I have just had a reply back from the Co-op Bank enclosing a screen shot of my account from 1987 (a different complaint to the one stated above) showing that although the loan was agreed, the funds were not taken out and it was closed immediately and therefore no PPI premiums were paid so they have closed the complaint.

I don't understand how they come to this conclusion, because in the first place, they say their records do not go back that far (but then they enclosed a screen shot?) and also I enclosed a copy of the loan agreement, a copy of the insurance premium and even copies of every bank statement clearly showing the PPI being taken out every month.

What shall I do as the letter says they have closed the complaint? Do I go back to the bank or straight to the ombudsman?

I feel like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall here. I thought I had valid points for claiming for both the 1990 loan (details in previous post) and this loan, but keep being rejected.

Can anyone PLEASE help? Thank you

dunstonh

Some of the reasons I gave as to why I thought I had been mis sold PPI were further backed up by the most common reasons PPI has been mis sold, as stated on this website - including being in good health.

Being in good health is not grounds for complaint and any site suggesting it is has got it wrong. It is the opposite where it can be a valid complaint reason. i.e. poor health with pre-existing conditions. To be eligible for PPI you have to be in good health or have minor health issues. So, to complain with good health being a reason for mis-sale is illogical.

I've found this:

Do you have a joint loan, but the insurance is only in one name?
If you've checked your paperwork and have found all names responsible for paying back the loan are not covered under the insurance - which is unfair in itself as either could be chased for money if you get behind with payments

Andy, do you not think this is valid then?

Most PPI is single life or where it is joint, the benefit is reduced i.e. 100/0 50/50 80/20 etc. Most personal loans are not joint. They are single borrower only. So, the PPI would be single as well. If the loan is joint, then there is potential for mis-sale if a single life policy is sold. However, it can be justified as well. Such as only covering the main breadwinner. So, in your case, you would need it to be a joint loan and for the person not covered to be financially responsible for the loan in some way (i.e. their income goes towards it).

I don't understand how they come to this conclusion, because in the first place, they say their records do not go back that far (but then they enclosed a screen shot?) and also I enclosed a copy of the loan agreement, a copy of the insurance premium and even copies of every bank statement clearly showing the PPI being taken out every month.

Records on payments are often deleted relatively quickly (6 years after closure or a running 6 years). However, the actual basic detail on the account, such as opening date and closure date are often retained much longer. Even indefinitely. If you have documentation and they do not, they are required to use your documentation in the complaint decision.

Clearly there is a difference of opinion here. You say you had it and made premium payments. They say the loan never proceeded. I would hazard a guess that they have found the wrong loan.

Have you supplied them with copies of what you have? I would suggest that is the next step. If that fails then you go to the FOS. However, if you are close to the 6 month date where the original rejection has taken place, you should go straight to the FOS.

willievergetthere?

Thank you dunstonh for all your help. In 1987 I did have minor health issues with asthma, but as my husband was the main breadwinner I think it covered only him, although I know three years earlier he was off work with depression - not sure if this would count.

Having looked at the screen shot the bank provided under a magnifying glass with a light (yes, the copy was that bad!!!) it seems that the copy they have sent is for a loan in 2007. When I originally put in a claim for 1987, they came back with the details for 2007 so I put a letter in with a new claim stating I am submitting a claim for 1987 NOT 2007, and it seems they have come back with the same information yet again. How do I get them to realise its a claim for 1987 and not for 2007 as they keep insisting!!!

Do you think the depression and asthma claim would hold out as I didn't put on the original form (I would be able to get medical proof if they needed it via the doctor I assume).

thank you in advance for any more clarification!

willievergetthere?

Sorry, forgot to say, I did provide copies of every statement showing the PPI premium clearly shown as being paid every month.

dunstonh

Do you think the depression and asthma claim would hold out as I didn't put on the original form (I would be able to get medical proof if they needed it via the doctor I assume).

Asthma would have to be pretty severe to invalidate the policy. And it would only matter if you were on the policy. in simple terms, depression is either clinical or event driven. Clinical depression is long term and tends to require medication and/or monitoring. That would probably invalidate the policy. Event driven depression would rarely invalidate the policy unless it was still an issue. e.g. depression following a bereavement.

When you put in a complaint about PPI to a lender they will check all loans you have had. So, it could be that they are saying the 2007 is clear and have no records on the 1987 one. you need to make it clear that it is the 1987 one you are looking at and supply them a copy of the papers you have. As you say you have done this and they still reject, then if you are not happy with it then you go to the FOS.

One thing that is worth noting is that monthly premium PPI is how it should be set up. A very common uphold reason on loan PPI is single premium with interest charged on it. With monthly, that does not happen. So, really, you have no technical failings on your PPI. Indeed, I just read a load of FOS decisions on PPI and consistently they were rejecting allegations which could not be proved (he said/she said style) and where the policy was set up correctly (monthly premium) and where the person was eligible for cover. You are fighting a case that happened 26 years ago with some of the weakest reasons going. You need to decide now whether to go to the FOS or give up. Reading FOS decisions, an outcome in your favour does not seem likely. However, I dont know what the actual quality of the co-op PPI was like. The FOS do consider quality and impact on ability to make a claim. Ignoring that though, you really dont have much going for you.

willievergetthere?

Story of my life! Thank you though dunstonh - you have been very helpful x

willievergetthere?

Further development!!! I am looking again at my bank statements for the 1990 loan which the bank have rejected my claim for because the reasons were not upheld, but I have now discovered I cancelled the premiums for the PPI half way through the loan. Would this strengthen my case, ie I must have realised it was not relevant to us, or would it make no difference and it would still probably be rejected? Any help appreciated - was just about to fill in the Ombudsman forms - thank you!

dunstonh

I have now discovered I cancelled the premiums for the PPI half way through the loan. Would this strengthen my case, ie I must have realised it was not relevant to us, or would it make no difference and it would still probably be rejected?

Actually, it anything it could end your complaint. The regulator allows a time bar to be applied to complaints. You have 6 years from the event of three years from being reasonably aware of an issue to raise a complaint (whichever is longest). So, if you bring it to their attention, they may try to time bar you.