Student, PPI, 1997 but 2005 statements

snailnet

This is a bit of a complex query but I'll try and keep it as simple as possible.

My wife has just found out that she was paying PPI on her Mastercard which she registered for as a student back in the late 90's.

It was not something she opted for, had any knowledge existed on her account and despite the card being cancelled in the last four years, the PPI policy is apparently still active.

Now, I know I didn't need to do this but I'm aware that the bank will probably want to fob her off with a minimal offer so we did some research and came up with the following:

• Some statements from as far back as 2005
• The start point for the account although no documentation for starting the account
• A spreadsheet of data to work out what she's owed (I was curious!).

So, the questions I have, have in part been answered on various FAQs but I wanted to clarify a couple of grey areas.


The fact that my wife was a student is by no means a guarantee but she used to work in a bank, her father worked in one and she knew to ask questions, etc... so we're confident that we have a case on misselling.

Would be useful to know if HSBC's PPI policy back in the late 1990's included cover for students. I'm guessing no but still confirmation would be good.




More importantly though I wanted to ask when/how the 8% compensation payment would start from and/or be applied.

I believe I'm right that you basically get an 8% simple rate for every year of your policy based on the total amount they owe you (premiums + compound interest charged).
(eg: 5 year policy. Compensation = £ppi_refund x 8% x 5)

So first off, is that correct?


Next up, would the number of years be start from when the the policy/account was opened or from the date of the earliest statement that we have available?

Part of that last question is because I wonder if the banks could argue that there's no proof before the earliest statement that my wife has paid any premiums. It's just a random thought but hey who would have thought we'd have this crazy misselling nightmare so I'm taking nothing for granted.




Appreciate any information on the above.

-taff

Anyone working less than 16 hours a week wouldn't be covered.
You need records for a complaint, so if they have destroyed records [ which they are allowed to do - and only have to keep info for a recommended 6 years], you're left with what you have. You can send a SAR to see what's left - see the front page template.
8% interest is only paid on any amount the account would have been in credit.
You get your premiums plus associated interest refunded plus 8% simple interest.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-credit-card-insurance

magpiecottage

There seem to be two flaws in your argument.

The first is that in 1997, almost all Mastercard accounts were sold using paper applications. That means a box had to be ticked for payment protection. Generally, the mainstream banks and building societies made this a positive opt in mechanism. One or two might have been opt out but on the whole they were not part of an ombudsman scheme.

The second is that if PPI existed it would have been there on every monthly statement - so how did she not know about it?

snailnet

magpiecottage wrote: »

The first is that in 1997, almost all Mastercard accounts were sold using paper applications. That means a box had to be ticked for payment protection. Generally, the mainstream banks and building societies made this a positive opt in mechanism. One or two might have been opt out but on the whole they were not part of an ombudsman scheme.

I did wonder about that but she's not the type to just tick something. She'd have asked.

magpiecottage wrote: »

The second is that if PPI existed it would have been there on every monthly statement - so how did she not know about it?

I've seen these sorts of questions on numerous threads and doubtless, like you, would have wondered how someone could be so blind, etc...

Three simple answers, first my wife is flipping awful at opening statements. Second, she doesn't consolidate her accounts (I run my own business so this drives me crazy!) and third, the term used is pretty generic*.

On that last point, it's really easy to be wise after the event but frankly all we ever hear is "PPI" but the terms used on statements vary hugely and because of the other factors above, well, it's easy to see how it wasn't spotted.


On the up side my wife is considerably smarter with checking her statements but she gets an F for historical attention to her accounts.

[Deleted User]

snailnet wrote: »

It was not something she opted for, had any knowledge existed on her account

It's a myth sponsored by claims companies that Banks randomly added PPI without the knowledge and permission of customers. Your wife has clearly simply forgotten taking out the insurance 16 years ago. The PPI will also have appeared on EVERY MONTHLY STATEMENT (where the account had a balance) which makes it all the more unlikely that she was unaware of it. If it didn't appear on statements (on a separate payment line then no PPI was paid.

snailnet wrote: »

despite the card being cancelled in the last four years, the PPI policy is apparently still active.

It matters little whether the PPI policy is still "active" since there will have been no attached credit card account and so no PPI will have been paid during this period.

snailnet

-taff wrote: »

Anyone working less than 16 hours a week wouldn't be covered.
You need records for a complaint, so if they have destroyed records [ which they are allowed to do - and only have to keep info for a recommended 6 years], you're left with what you have. You can send a SAR to see what's left - see the front page template.

Noted.. and thankfully we have quite a bit. First time I've ever been thankful for the hoarding

8% interest is only paid on any amount the account would have been in credit.

I realised the information I'd read to date was inaccurate and understand the logic involved so I'm glad I asked.

[Deleted User]

snailnet wrote: »

my wife is flipping awful at opening statements.

You cannot use this as part of your mis-selling complaint. Not checking statements is not the bank's fault.

snailnet wrote: »

Noted.. and thankfully we have quite a bit. First time I've ever been thankful for the hoarding

If you have all this documentation and it shows PPI was paid then it contradicts your wife's assertion that she knew nothing about it.

snailnet

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's a myth sponsored by claims companies that Banks randomly added PPI without the knowledge and permission of customers. Your wife has clearly simply forgotten taking out the insurance 16 years ago. The PPI will also have appeared on EVERY MONTHLY STATEMENT (where the account had a balance) which makes it all the more unlikely that she was unaware of it. If it didn't appear on statements (on a separate payment line then no PPI was paid.

On it's own, yes that makes sense but she opened the mastercard account when she opened her student account when it was inappropriate and would not cover her. I believe that covers the mis-sold aspect pretty clearly.

With the greatest of respect, she's not the sort to just dumbly tick the box, she'd ask questions, check the small print and then check with her father if she wasn't sure.

And just to clarify we found out about the PPI on the CC when we phoned to check about her loan account. The latter didn't have PPI attached but the bod on the phones indicated it was on the CC and remained active despite closure of the account.

It matters little whether the PPI policy is still "active" since there will have been no attached credit card account and so no PPI will have been paid during this period.

Noted but from a procedural point of view it should surely have been closed. That surprised both of us, but it's a side issue regardless.

snailnet

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You cannot use this as part of your mis-selling complaint. Not checking statements is not the bank's fault.

If you have all this documentation and it shows PPI was paid then it contradicts your wife's assertion that she knew nothing about it.

Ok... based on your logic the banks would be able to void pretty much ALL credit card based PPI claims on your Catch 22 scenario.

If it didn't appear on statements (on a separate payment line then no PPI was paid.

So, no line on statement means no PPI = No Claim

If you have all this documentation and it shows PPI was paid then it contradicts your wife's assertion that she knew nothing about it.

Having line in your statement means you had PPI but not reading statement means you should have realised and stopped it... so No Claim again.


I refer you back to my earlier points about her being a student therefore not covered, therefore mis-sold.

[Deleted User]

snailnet wrote: »

On it's own, yes that makes sense but she opened the mastercard account when she opened her student account when it was inappropriate and would not cover her. I believe that covers the mis-sold aspect pretty clearly.

Well, if you can prove to the Bank that she was unfairly cajoled into taking out insurance that was not suitable then you may have a case.

snailnet wrote: »

With the greatest of respect, she's not the sort to just dumbly tick the box

Plenty of others did exactly that, I'm afraid. I'd concentrate on the student aspect in any complaint you intend to make. Do be sure your wife was working less than 16 hours a week at the time though-the Bank will obviously want proof of this.

snailnet wrote: »

we found out about the PPI on the CC when we phoned to check about her loan account. The latter didn't have PPI attached but the bod on the phones indicated it was on the CC and remained active despite closure of the account.

As I said, this is totally irrelevant since no PPI was paid regardless of it not being officially cancelled and so still being classed as "active". This is just a Bank admin error which has no bearing on a mis-selling complaint.

[Deleted User]

snailnet wrote: »

Ok... based on your logic the banks would be able to void pretty much ALL credit card based PPI claims on your Catch 22 scenario.

Do realise that I am not the Bank and only commenting on the weaknesses in your complaint as you've described it. Banks do reject complaints based on the customer not knowing about the PPI. You need to concentrate on the student aspect (and not be distracted by irrelevancies) if you hope to have success.