Yorkshire bank loan 91' PPI help

WhyDoThat

Hi All

While looking into my father in laws documents,I discovered PPI and due to the fact he was in a good job with enhanced redundancy and sick pay, thought he had grounds to reclaim. (from my understanding he would not have been able to make a successful claim)
While we has success with five out of six missold policies, (wahooo) he has been shut down by Yorkshire bank.
The loan was taken out in 1991 and he had to tick a box to op out, no clauses had been pointed out and again he had enhanced redundancy and sick pay, Yorkshire bank have said that the relevant information would of been given as all staff are trained- there are a few more reasons but I strongly feel that they don't compete with the fact a claim would of been declined. (not sure if the "opt out" is fair as we would normally tick to agree??)

Yorkshire bank HAVE sent the signed application back with the "opt out"

Can anyone shed light on this?


TIA

dunstonh

While looking into my father in laws documents,I discovered PPI and due to the fact he was in a good job with enhanced redundancy and sick pay, thought he had grounds to reclaim. (from my understanding he would not have been able to make a successful claim)

Redundancy packages have no impact on PPI. So, whether he has good or bad doesnt matter. Employer sick pay can have an impact but it depends on the type of PPI. For example, the FOS have rejected complaints on MPPI where there has been 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay. However, on loan or credit card PPI that would be more likely to be upheld. Some types of PPI dont pay out if there is an overlap of benefits. Others do. The former is more likely to be an upheld complaint. The latter less likely.

Can anyone shed light on this?

If he disagrees than he can refer it to the FOS. However, what they appear to be saying is that they would have paid out (which is expected) and there is no evidence to suggest any wrongdoing in the sale.

magpiecottage

The fact that somebody was in a good job has no bearing on the suitability of PPI. On the contrary, if he was not in a good job, it is unlikely that the loan would have been granted.

The redundancy payment is irrelevant unless you can prove it was a contractual entitlement. It would also need to be insured so that, if the employer went bust, the insurer could pay it. I have yet to see such a contract of employment - presumably because no employer expects to make a redundancy payment until the point at which such insurance would not be available.

WhyDoThat

Hi, thanks for the replies.
It was a personal loan that had the ppi, he would of had 12 months full pay then a sickness benefit (part of his benefit package, along with the redundancy package of 6weeks for each year of service) this is all in his contract of employment, so we can back it up if needed.
Due to the fact Egg, HSBC, NatWest, BF and Barclaycard have all ruled in his favour (loans and credit cards)- im just at a loss at to why yb have not.
even the "opt out" paragraph does not mention any clauses, the letter from yb does not say anything about final correspondence so maybe worth sending through copies of our evidence of mis sale?

magpiecottage

WhyDoThat wrote: »

(part of his benefit package, along with the redundancy package of 6weeks for each year of service)

If so, then the redundancy payment will have been taxable - which is why I doubt it really was a contractual entitlement. In addition, if the employer went bust he would simply have become an unsecured creditor.
If it was a single premium added to the loan, or if he had to opt out of the cover it MIGHT be upheld. However the bank can argue that the standards at the time permitted that approach.