Reclaiming PPI when loan not repaid?

TomBarnes

I took out a personal loan with Nat West. I had a disagreement with them over some steep bank charges on another account, and refused to repay the rest of the loan. I had moved abroad by this time, and in due course, Nat West didn't pursue the remaining loan repayments.

This was more than six years ago, so Nat West would be time-barred from reclaiming anything back - as far as I can tell.

However, there may still be a PPI claim I could make against them.

I don't want to rock the boat, but a PPI repayment would come in handy.

Anyone had any experience of this scenario?

Thanks.

jacques_chirac

Any reclaim would be offset against the monies you owe the bank, and quite rightly so.

The time bar only applies to them taking legal action to recoup their monies.

antrobus

TomBarnes wrote: »

....This was more than six years ago, so Nat West would be time-barred from reclaiming anything back - as far as I can tell.......

They're time-barred from using the courts to reclaim anything back, but they're perfectly free to use any other available method. Such as applying the proceeds of a successful PPI 'claim'.

TomBarnes

antrobus wrote: »

They're time-barred from using the courts to reclaim anything back, but they're perfectly free to use any other available method. Such as applying the proceeds of a successful PPI 'claim'.

Thanks for your thoughts.

How so? Ultimately, if I sued the bank for the PPI money, they wouldn't be able to counterclaim or set-off, surely?

amersall

When you put the claim in, this will reopen the account so if you win they will take any redress off the debt.

-taff

PPI is not a legal matter either so you can try suing them, but be prepared for disappointment and court costs.

If the amout of PPI you paid on the loan was more than you defaulted with, there's not much point anyway. They may give you the interest portion if you are successful.

TomBarnes

I guess that's that, then. Thanks for your input.

Am surprised PPI isn't a legal matter...

StuC75

Also Have you actually paid the PPI as you defaulted on the original?

It does appear somewhat cynical to say you were 'charged' PPI, but didnt actually pay for it (since defaulted) and then want it refunding to you.. regardless of what they may have charged when it was setup. you havent really said how much of it you actually paid?

I would guess that the bulk of what was charged on the 'Account' was never paid by you..

TomBarnes wrote: »

I guess that's that, then. Thanks for your input.

Am surprised PPI isn't a legal matter...

dunstonh

Am surprised PPI isn't a legal matter...

The PPI issue is largely an FSA one. It let banks sell it that way for over 20 years. Never highlighting it or warning about it and then decided to retrospectively apply 2011 rules to old cases.

antrobus

TomBarnes wrote: »

Thanks for your thoughts.

How so? Ultimately, if I sued the bank for the PPI money, they wouldn't be able to counterclaim or set-off, surely?

Wouldn't necessarily make much difference even if that was technically the case. You could only sue for the loss you suffered i.e. to be to put you back in the position you would have been in had you not taken out the PPI. E.g. if you left Nat West holding a bad debt of £2,500, whereas it would have only have been £500 without PPI, then your actual loss would be £nil.