PPI Re claiming

Dr_Manhattan

I took out a 6k loan with Beneficial Finance on 24th November 2006, my monthly repayments worked out to be £214.57 over a period of 5 years (60 months) so would have repaid a total of £12874.20.

Now, when I went in to Beneficial Finance I know that I would not have taken out the insurance, but I got in touch with HSBC to confirm just in case. I received a letter today indicating that I did infact have PPI on the loan, now firstly will it hinder my chances that I dont have the paperwork anymore? Secondly in the questionnaire, section E - About your complaint, what should I write? Has anyone got a similar complaint that they could tell me about?

Chris

[Deleted User]

Dr_Manhattan wrote: »

in the questionnaire, section E - About your complaint, what should I write?

You have to write the truth about the personal circumstance of your purchase of PPI. No point asking others for their reasons..

sun73

Sounds like HSBC have still got records about your loan so you might not need the agreement to go ahead. It's better to be honest when completing section E, if you cannot remember anything just say so, but it might help if your loan was front loaded with the ppi interest (most unsecured loans were) and if you were entitled to full sick pay from your employer at the point of sale, suggesting that you had no need of insurance.

rwd0802

I want to know where I stand with my situation. I had a loan, I had PPI, it was definitely mis-sold, PPI reclaiming came about, I reclaimed direct with my bank (Barclays) and I was sort of successful!

They wrote back to confirm that "I was mis-sold PPI" and that I was due a scheduled amount, but because I had claimed on the protection, and gained back more than the value of the mis-sold repayment, I had zero outed my claim, therefore no payment had to be made.

Now I know this is me seemingly being greedy - having my cake and eating it and all that...
...but the fact remains does it not that I was forced to take PPI (reason as I was fresh in a new job and the loan was to help with the 12 weeks hardship without a job, pay for new stuff for the job, and cover me for the first 6 weeks I was to go without pay - but the new job meant that I had no security and the loan would only be approved if I took PPI - blatant mis-selling!) and the loan repayments were higher than oringally worked out, as by the end - the increase made each month repaying it hard!

Can the point that I benefited really stop them from paying out in a proven case of mis-selling...I know I would of been in trouble if it wasn't there for me to fall back on, but I wasn't given that option to consider. It's there to give us a safety net which it did do on this occasion, but CAN that take away from the fact that it was mis-sold?

And as I originally claimed, have I got a chance to re-claim or appeal it in this situation?

tomtontom

rwd0802 wrote: »

I want to know where I stand with my situation. I had a loan, I had PPI, it was definitely mis-sold, PPI reclaiming came about, I reclaimed direct with my bank (Barclays) and I was sort of successful!

They wrote back to confirm that "I was mis-sold PPI" and that I was due a scheduled amount, but because I had claimed on the protection, and gained back more than the value of the mis-sold repayment, I had zero outed my claim, therefore no payment had to be made.

Now I know this is me seemingly being greedy - having my cake and eating it and all that...
...but the fact remains does it not that I was forced to take PPI (reason as I was fresh in a new job and the loan was to help with the 12 weeks hardship without a job, pay for new stuff for the job, and cover me for the first 6 weeks I was to go without pay - but the new job meant that I had no security and the loan would only be approved if I took PPI - blatant mis-selling!) and the loan repayments were higher than oringally worked out, as by the end - the increase made each month repaying it hard!

Can the point that I benefited really stop them from paying out in a proven case of mis-selling...I know I would of been in trouble if it wasn't there for me to fall back on, but I wasn't given that option to consider. It's there to give us a safety net which it did do on this occasion, but CAN that take away from the fact that it was mis-sold?

And as I originally claimed, have I got a chance to re-claim or appeal it in this situation?

Yes, you are being greedy. They have already paid out more than you are owed, you have been put back to the position you were in had you not had the cover. What more do you expect?

dunstonh

Now I know this is me seemingly being greedy - having my cake and eating it and all that...
...but the fact remains does it not that I was forced to take PPI (reason as I was fresh in a new job and the loan was to help with the 12 weeks hardship without a job, pay for new stuff for the job, and cover me for the first 6 weeks I was to go without pay - but the new job meant that I had no security and the loan would only be approved if I took PPI - blatant mis-selling!) and the loan repayments were higher than oringally worked out, as by the end - the increase made each month repaying it hard!

It is not only being greedy, it is illogical and irrespective of what you or I think, the FCA redress guidelines quite correctly allow any claims paid out to be deducted from the redress.

It is actually, quite possible that you were not mis-sold but are being upheld as they know they have nothing to pay out on (very common in this scenario).

Can the point that I benefited really stop them from paying out in a proven case of mis-selling

Yes

have I got a chance to re-claim or appeal it in this situation?

none whatsoever as they are following the required redress method defined by the regulator.

-taff

rwd0802 wrote: »

They wrote back to confirm that "I was mis-sold PPI" and that I was due a scheduled amount, but because I had claimed on the protection, and gained back more than the value of the mis-sold repayment, I had zero outed my claim, therefore no payment had to be made.

It isn't you seemingly being greedy, you are being greedy.

The purpose of redress is to put you back int he position you would have been in if you hadn't had it, so if they wanted to push the point, they could refund your PPI, less what they paid to you [which would be a negative amount] , and then come after you for the rest of what they paid you.

Dr_Manhattan

So up until Thursday I hadn't heard anything about my PPI claim and decided to give them a call. They stated that they had written to me with an offer of £329.60 which works out to be roughly £5.49 per each month I had the loan, plus interest I imagine.

Now, I genuinely do not feel as though this is correct given that the loan itself without any interest would be £100 per month, the interest alone less the ppi redress at monthly rate (5.49) equates to £108.51, just over double the loan value.

Unfortunately when I paid off my loan I got rid of the docs regarding the interest rate, etc and when I have called the bank previously they claim that they cannot find any trace of them, it seems like depending on their response I may have to get the Financial Ombudsman involved!

I find it hard to believe that it was all interest, so I have asked them to call me for a breakdown which they will do within 5 working days. Now I know that some banks have been caught out using loopholes to not pay the full amount, does anyone know if HSBC is one of them?

dunstonh

Now, I genuinely do not feel as though this is correct given that the loan itself without any interest would be £100 per month

You dont get the loan refunded. Just the PPI premium. Premiums tended to float between £2.50 and £6.00 per £100pm of cover.

If you repaid the loan early, then tehre would be a part rebate of PPI in the settlement.

Now I know that some banks have been caught out using loopholes to not pay the full amount, does anyone know if HSBC is one of them?

No they havent. Some complaints prior to 2011 did see some lenders try to offer smaller amounts but the regulator has set out the redress methods.

The amount seems about right for a £100pm loan. Especially if you repaid it early.

it seems like depending on their response I may have to get the Financial Ombudsman involved!

What evidence do you have to present to the FOS to show HSBC are wrong?