PPI, loan ad bank charges

sam1craven

also the bank asked me at the time of claiming on the ppi, the reason I had stopped working, I told them exactly what I have said on this thread and there answer was "u cannot claim due to maternity" they came to the conclusion that was the reason for unemployment, they never said it was due to a relationship breakdown even though I told them what had happened

antrobus

sam1craven wrote: »

I split up with my partner whilst on maternity, I was on maternity for 4 months after that. Then went onto benefits. At what point am I classed as unemployed then? ....

You became unemployed at the point that you decided that you couldn't return to your original job after maternity finished.

sam1craven wrote: »

also the bank asked me at the time of claiming on the ppi, the reason I had stopped working, I told them exactly what I have said on this thread and there answer was "u cannot claim due to maternity" they came to the conclusion that was the reason for unemployment, they never said it was due to a relationship breakdown even though I told them what had happened

I'm not convinced that it matters why your bank decided to accept your PPI complaint.

What you now appear to be saying is that you only took out those loans in 2007 because you thought you had insurance to cover the repayments should you become unemployed, and are now arguing that the loans were mis-sold because you didn't have insurance cover. But your insurance cover would never have paid out whatever because your unemployment arose as a result of your own actions and not anyone else's.

As I said before; you can insure your house against fire, but you're not covered if you set the fire yourself.

sam1craven

As I said before; the bank came up with the conclusion that my unemployment was due to maternity not a relationship breakdown. Im basing my info on what they told me the reason was for not been able to claim on my insurance, which I repeat they said was "maternity" Even AFTER I told them the situation in regards to the relationship breakdown and the dates etc. Either way I wouldn't have been able to claim on the ppi, cos both maternity and relationship breakdowns are exclusions, which I wasn't aware of. is this too another way they have mis-sold to me.

"Payment Protection Insurance has several exemptions, which are usually hidden in the contract. Health issues such as back problems, stress and depression are usually excluded from this and ppi cannot be used for other common causes of financial hardship such as relationship breakdown or the serious illness of a relative affecting your ability to work."
quote from a solicitors website

sam1craven

so if the bank claims that it was due to maternity and that's what they have on there records and we hypothetically say that I split up with my partner prior to leaving for maternity then where would I stand then with my complaint regarding mis sold loan, charges etc

sam1craven

as all you seem to be focusing on is the mis sold ppi, I don't need reassurance as to whether or not this was mis sold as I already know it was

_Andy_

sam1craven wrote: »

as all you seem to be focusing on is the mis sold ppi, I don't need reassurance as to whether or not this was mis sold as I already know it was

Why mention PPI in the thread title then?
If PPI isn't your query, what is? We've already explained the loan wasn't 'mis sold'

sam1craven

I mentioned the ppi because this is the reason why I THINK the loan was also mis sold as I would NOT have taken out the loan if I had known I was being lied to or mis sold the product. whether you think that my reason for unemployment was due to relationship breakdown, the bank believes otherwise so on that basis do I have a claim for a mis sold loan and then charges. After looking into it more there are claims management companies that deal with mis sold loans due to mis selling of ppi. Am I better going through them.

-taff

sam1craven wrote: »

So finally to my point was this loan mis sold to me as well as the ppi, as I specifically asked for ppi but wasnt covered.

No, because you asked for the loan and you were in full time employment at the time you took it out.

You voluntarily got pregnant, you split up, you voluntarily moved, you chose not to return to your job.

Nothing you've said says th e loan [or the PPI] has been missold. Read the last paragraph of dunstons post again and do that.

antrobus

sam1craven wrote: »

as all you seem to be focusing on is the mis sold ppi, I don't need reassurance as to whether or not this was mis sold as I already know it was

No, I'd say that it was you that was focusing on the mis-sold PPI. I would agree that it's irrelevant to your current complaint.

You're asking people here 'what we think' about your claim that the loan was mis-sold, because you thought that it was covered by insurance when it wasn't. What I think is that no insurance would have covered you against the consequences of your own actions, and therefore you claim has no merit.

I'm not sure what the point is in you arguing about that. None of what is said here is of any significance. If you think you have a complaint against the bank, make a complaint against the bank, and escalate to the FOS if necessary. They might decide to offer you some money, they might not.

sam1craven

Regardless of what circumstances the insurance actually pay out for. I thought the whole scandal of mis selling ppi led people to believe that they could make claims and then couldn't because they werent aware of the EXCLUSIONS. As this seems to be a common reason why people are reclaiming bck there ppi. So yes, I might have got pregnant but like I said I was told that id be covered for that. No, insurance companies may not pay out for these circumstances, well in fact they don't, but the person selling me the product led me to believe they do, hence the whole ppi mis selling scandal.

i have taken all that's been said into account and will maybe just write a letter to my bank and see what they say.
Thankyou for all your supportive, sympathetic comments