Random questions from Lloyds PPI

Denni

Hi folks,
Am hoping someone with a lot more knowledge in this subject can help me.

My wife had various loans with Lloyds back in 1999. She had just joined the Royal Navy and was training as a Nurse. She had a loan for student bits and bobs and a car loan. When she applied for her loans, she explained that she would be in full time employment with the Navy for at least 7 years as this was the payback she had to do for her Navy nurse training.

She applied for a PPI claim about 2 months ago and Lloyds got back to her today. She told them that she felt she was Mis-sold the PPI on the grounds that she was in full time employment and didn't need it and also that she was told she had a better chance of the loan being accepted if she accepted PPI.

Anyway, they rang her back today with some random questions. They wanted to know the following;

1. How much sick pay would she get if off for a period of time.
2. How much of a redundancy payment would she receive if made redundant.
3. How much would be paid out if she died.

Now the sick pay is irrelevant as she is paid full pay in the Navy if she is off sick. Maybe after a year and dependant on the sickness, injury etc, they would review it and see if she should go to a military medical board for discharge.

Redundancy payment question may as well be how long is a piece of string! Who knows any of that unless you are about to be made redundant.

Finally the if you die payment. Well at this stage of her career, I would get her full pension and gratuity.

Now, my wife gets the impression that when talking to the chap, he was talking retrospectively back in 1999 when she took the loans out. As she had just started in the Navy, the death thing and redundancy are irrelevant and the sickness thing applies as above.

Now apologies but I think they are trying to be divisive but I haven't figured out why they would ask these questions, I'm presuming they are trying to work out some sums. I have told her to tell them that it is all irrelevant and stick to her guns about it being Mis-sold.

Can someone in the know please advise me if I have missed something very obvious and if I'm giving her good advice!

Many thanks for taking time to read this and I hope I've made it clear enough.
Den

Cash_Flow

Denni wrote: »

Hi folks,
Am hoping someone with a lot more knowledge in this subject can help me.

My wife had various loans with Lloyds back in 1999. She had just joined the Royal Navy and was training as a Nurse. She had a loan for student bits and bobs and a car loan. When she applied for her loans, she explained that she would be in full time employment with the Navy for at least 7 years as this was the payback she had to do for her Navy nurse training.

She applied for a PPI claim about 2 months ago and Lloyds got back to her today. She told them that she felt she was Mis-sold the PPI on the grounds that she was in full time employment and didn't need it and also that she was told she had a better chance of the loan being accepted if she accepted PPI.

Anyway, they rang her back today with some random questions. They wanted to know the following;

1. How much sick pay would she get if off for a period of time.
2. How much of a redundancy payment would she receive if made redundant.
3. How much would be paid out if she died.

Now the sick pay is irrelevant as she is paid full pay in the Navy if she is off sick. Maybe after a year and dependant on the sickness, injury etc, they would review it and see if she should go to a military medical board for discharge.

Redundancy payment question may as well be how long is a piece of string! Who knows any of that unless you are about to be made redundant.

Finally the if you die payment. Well at this stage of her career, I would get her full pension and gratuity.

Now, my wife gets the impression that when talking to the chap, he was talking retrospectively back in 1999 when she took the loans out. As she had just started in the Navy, the death thing and redundancy are irrelevant and the sickness thing applies as above.

Now apologies but I think they are trying to be divisive but I haven't figured out why they would ask these questions, I'm presuming they are trying to work out some sums. I have told her to tell them that it is all irrelevant and stick to her guns about it being Mis-sold.

Can someone in the know please advise me if I have missed something very obvious and if I'm giving her good advice!

Many thanks for taking time to read this and I hope I've made it clear enough.
Den

I have had the same standard questions for all 3 of my PPI complaints with Lloyd's, two were upheld and I am waiting on the 3rd.

As the main basis of the complaint seems to be that the PPI was not suitable too your Wife's needs, it is only right that Lloyd's ask her the questions you mentioned to try and establish the full facts at the time of application.

Insider101

They are not random questions. They are all of relevance to the investigation of the complaint.

Being in full time employment doesn't make a policy Mis-sold. Indeed you usually need to be working a minimum 16 hours to be eligible. The purpose of the policy is to cover you in case your employment circumstances change, either you can't work due to illness/accident or you are made redundant.

It appears that in this case the sale may have been an advised one. Hence, they are trying to establish the suitability of the product for her. Any questions asked relating to circumstances would be about her situation at the time the loans were taken. A complaint about Mis-selling is all about the position at the time of sale, not several years later. They are trying to assess her need for the cover based on her situation at the time. In order to do so, they need to ask questions about her existing provision for illness, unemployment or death, which are the circumstances the policy covers.

What you would get in the event of her death at this stage is irrelevant, it's the situation then that counts. I assume it would have been little or nothing. Probably the same in the event of redundancy. On the other hand, she seems to have very generous sick benefits which might swing things in her favour.

You can only wait and see but there's the rationale behind the questioning.

-taff

Denni wrote: »

Now, my wife gets the impression that when talking to the chap, he was talking retrospectively back in 1999 when she took the loans out. As she had just started in the Navy, the death thing and redundancy are irrelevant and the sickness thing applies as above..

Of course they are asking about when she took the loans out. When you complain about PPI you are saying there was something wrong with the sales process AT THAT TIME. Not later or just before, but at the time of the sale, so her personal cirumstances at the time of the sale matter, not her future circumstances, even if it's week later because things can change.

If she was employed by the Navy at the time of sale, she should get her premiums back because you can't be made redundant....If she wasn't, she probably will using single premium as a reason.

dunstonh

Anyway, they rang her back today with some random questions.

They are not random questions. They are key fact questions.

Now, my wife gets the impression that when talking to the chap, he was talking retrospectively back in 1999 when she took the loans out.

A complaint about mis-sale relates to the sale of the policy. So, it would apply to a date in the past.

Now apologies but I think they are trying to be divisive but I haven't figured out why they would ask these questions, I'm presuming they are trying to work out some sums.

Because that questions are key to looking at suitability of the policy.

I'm presuming they are trying to work out some sums.

No. nothing to do with that.

If you make a complaint saying it is unsuitable then they are now trying to find out why you think it was unsuitable. We dont know your complaint reasons. However, those questions asked are the ones you would expect when they are looking at suitability of the policy.

magpiecottage

Denni wrote: »

Now, my wife gets the impression that when talking to the chap, he was talking retrospectively back in 1999 when she took the loans out.

That is correct. You are alleging that the policy was misSOLD not miskeptinforce.

To investigate that it is necessary to find out what the situation was when it was SOLD.

As she had just started in the Navy, the death thing and redundancy are irrelevant and the sickness thing applies as above.

Most PPI does not inclead death benefits so it would be irrelevant. However, you are incorrect about redundancy as all armed forces personnel are at risk of it - how many Harrier pilots does the Royal Navy now have?

As far as sickness is concerned do you KNOW how much sick pay would have been received? My understanding is that armed forces personnel would receive gratuities for long term illness attributable to active service but that seems to mean an illness/injury sustained in military action.

I have told her to tell them that it is all irrelevant and stick to her guns about it being Mis-sold.

I am afraid an unsubstantiated assertion will not result in the complaint being upheld.

It might be for some other reason but the reasons you have given are not at all persuasive.

JuicyJesus

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am afraid an unsubstantiated assertion will not result in the complaint being upheld.

And not providing the information asked for means there is no chance of a complaint being upheld, as opposed to the information being provided and there being a small chance of it being upheld (based on what is said here.)

Denni

Hi folks,
Thanks for all the In depth replies, much appreciated.

Summarising, my wife was told the PPI would increase the chances of her loan and no one explained to her at the time that as she was in full time guaranteed employment and she would be paid if sick, she didn't require it so it is on these grounds that she is claiming it was Mis-sold.

Also, as far as redundancy goes, she is in a protected trade within the Navy so that wouldn't happen and you get full sick pay if you are off sick. And then dependant on your condition and chance of returning back to work at full fitness, dpends on whether you are sent to a medical board to return to work or discharged.

So now I have had sage advice, Shall my wife simply say that she was Mis-sold as per the reasons above? She wouldn't have been made redundant, she would be on full pay if off sick and as far as the death payments go, that is not something that can be worked out so early in a service career.

Apologies for all the questions but we would like to get it correct in order for it to be upheld.

Thanks in advance again for any help, Den

magpiecottage

Denni wrote: »

Summarising, my wife was told the PPI would increase the chances of her loan

That might be so but there is nothing to corroborate it.

If I said you owed me £1 million, you would not expect a court to agree simply because you could not prove that you didn't.

no one explained to her at the time that as she was in full time guaranteed employment

As I say, plenty of people in the armed forces have been made redundant so that will not fly.

and she would be paid if sick

Do you have evidence of this.

she didn't require it so it is on these grounds that she is claiming it was Mis-sold.

but you have not proven your assertions, so they do not in themselves amount to misselling.

Also, as far as redundancy goes, she is in a protected trade within the Navy so that wouldn't happen and you get full sick pay if you are off sick. And then dependant on your condition and chance of returning back to work at full fitness, dpends on whether you are sent to a medical board to return to work or discharged.

So now I have had sage advice, Shall my wife simply say that she was Mis-sold as per the reasons above? She wouldn't have been made redundant, she would be on full pay if off sick and as far as the death payments go, that is not something that can be worked out so early in a service career.

Apologies for all the questions but we would like to get it correct in order for it to be upheld.

Thanks in advance again for any help, Den[/QUOTE]

dunstonh

Summarising, my wife was told the PPI would increase the chances of her loan

Weak reason for compaint as almost certainly your wife has no evidence to support that allegation. So, on that point, it is easily rejected.

and no one explained to her at the time that as she was in full time guaranteed employment and she would be paid if sick, she didn't require it so it is on these grounds that she is claiming it was Mis-sold.

How was she in guaranteed employment? I believe only the police have that.

Once unprovable allegations have been rejected, the bank then looks at suitability of the policy and for that they need to ask questions and find out if it is suitable or not. That is why they are asking those questions. They have rejected the allegation and are not checking suitability as they are required to do. If you dont answer the questions, they cannot assess suitability. There is nothing to hide here. Answering only helps unless the complaint is a try-it-on (not saying yours is about about half the complaints are)

-taff

I'd just go for single premium, in the armed forces [ sick pay not an issue] and see how that goes.

Personally, i've found they phone up and ask these questions, but it rarely has a bearing on the outcome.