Noticed some changes? You can read all about the improvements we've made on the Forum in our latest announcement. We also have a new set of Forum rules so please take the time to give them a read and familiarise yourself.
Have you been underpaid for your PPI reclaim?
Former_MSE_Wendy
929 Posts
Hi all
We've just added a section to our PPI guide about Comparative redress - where some people have only had partial refunds, because lenders treated them as if they'd been sold the wrong type of PPI rather than completely mis-sold PPI.
Whether you received your offer in the last week or over a year ago, if you disagree you would have bought this different PPI it's NOT compulsory for you to accept your bank's decision.
Let us know below if you're affected. And if you contacted your bank about it, how did you get on.
Thanks and good luck, MSE Wendy
We've just added a section to our PPI guide about Comparative redress - where some people have only had partial refunds, because lenders treated them as if they'd been sold the wrong type of PPI rather than completely mis-sold PPI.
Whether you received your offer in the last week or over a year ago, if you disagree you would have bought this different PPI it's NOT compulsory for you to accept your bank's decision.
Let us know below if you're affected. And if you contacted your bank about it, how did you get on.
Thanks and good luck, MSE Wendy
*** Get the Martin's Money Tips Free E-mail at www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips ***
0
This discussion has been closed.
Replies
I'd expect better from MSE, this is a story being pushed by a CMC Trade Organisation, why are you giving it publicity?
The banks offer is final, if you disagree go to FOS.
If you've already accepted it you cannot go back and 'reclaim your reclaim'
The comparative redress method would not be used on upheld complaints. It is used on rejected complaints but still results in some redress due to the adjustment from single to regular. It can result in more people getting redress. Not less.
I went back and argued the settlement figure as I would've had cover in other ways. They said that it was still in line with their guidelines, and I chose to accept their offer. It didn't seem worthwhile going to the Ombudsman for something that is in line with what they say.
The article that led me here got my hopes up, but reading the above comments it sounds like it was settled in a correct manner?
My bank upheld my complaint and did use comparative redress. Would this mean they have not acted correctly?
Read their letter again, I doubt you'll find anything which actually states that you were mis-sold or that they accept this to be the case. They will have simply offered to redress your complaint. No, it means they upheld your complaint insofar as they agreed that you wouldn't have taken a single premium policy which attracted extra interest.
So it's only been upheld in part.
Going to the Ombudsman will mean that you get no redress for about eighteen months, with very likely the same outcome!
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/PPI-comparative-redress.pdf
.
If they uphold your complaint as mis-sold as the PPI was unsuitable or you were ineligible or similar to that then they should not use this method. If they are upholding the complaint as not being mis-sold but set up incorrectly then they should use this method.
Way back before the banks had caved in, I wrote to Lloyds TSB with paperwork that I could find about recent loans I had had with them (I had loans with Lloyds TSB stretching back over many years - always refinancing them..). I reckoned they owed me about £4k. They wrote back and denied all responsibility, but rather bizarrely still offered me £4k anyway, which I was obviously very pleased with. This was c. 2009.
Then, last year, they wrote to me again (without prompting) about all the other loans I had had with them. I completed their questionnaire, and got back a further almost £12k. You could have knocked me down with a feather.
Anyway, I was over the moon, as you can imagine, until I read about the comparative redress argument. So I re-checked my paperwork, and, sure enough, Lloyds had used this on some, but not all, of my loans. So, despite reading the negative comments here, I wrote again. I reckoned that they owed me a further £1.8k.
This week I received a letter, and some cheques.
They have offered me a further £5,800.
So don't anyone tell me that this doesn't work, and it's not worth doing, and it's all a non-story - £5.8k says it isn't.
That's almost £22k reclaimed from Lloyds, so I'd like to offer my sincerest thanks to Martin and his team for doing such a wonderful job in bringing these dreadful bank practices to our attention and in telling us how to claim for ourselves without going through some dodgy third party who would cream off all the profits.