Barclays letter and cheque

JACKCAT

can anyone help I tied myself and then through a no win no fee site to claim on mis sold pip neither was successful I now have had a letter saying that Barclays looked into the claim again and have decided I was mis sold ppi a cheque was enlosed for around 500 with a breakdown summary stating that because I have a dro ( mainly because I was saddled with a loan I could not repay) I was refunded over 2000 given 500 and the rest paid toward the debt is this normal practice I did not have a dro when I first tried and was refused now eventually some answers but not a lot of refund!:money::money:

[Deleted User]

JACKCAT wrote: »

I was refunded over 2000 given 500 and the rest paid toward the debt is this normal practice

Yes, it is normal for PPI redress to go towards any unpaid debts with that particular Bank. This is the right to set off.
In addition, you'll probably end up being chased by the Claims Company for their share of your redress so I wouldn't go spending the money.

-taff

The claims company should have made you aware that if you still owed money/defaulted amounts, that the PPI refund could first go towards these.

If they didn't, you have a case to not pay them.

dunstonh

You should never use a claims company if you have arrears, defaults or amounts previously written off as the lender can use the redress against the unpaid debts.

If the claims company knew this then they should have refused to take you on or made you aware of it at the very least. If they were not aware of it, then they cannot tell you. They will normally bill you for the full amount of the redress, even if you only get a smaller amount as cash in hand. And yes, the lender can offset it against the unpaid debt. It is both logical and allowed.

JACKCAT

-taff wrote: »

The claims company should have made you aware that if you still owed money/defaulted amounts, that the PPI refund could first go towards these.

If they didn't, you have a case to not pay them.

when I tried and failed being told I was not mis sold ppi I was still paying the loan if Barclays had acknowledged it then I would not have ended up with a debt I had a car accident and could not work Barclays paid 3 months and no more although I was told the loan would be covered I fought and got nowhere now 5 years later they come up with this if the debt is written off why can they hold money back that I should have been entitled to do I except the 500 and that's that

-taff

why did they stop paying after 3 months?

And yes, if you can't pay the capital back, since no one had you at gunpoint to get the loan, it's right that they can use any redress against what you still owe them. You saddled yourself with the debt, you are going to have to take some responsibility for that.

JACKCAT

-taff wrote: »

why did they stop paying after 3 months?

And yes, if you can't pay the capital back, since no one had you at gunpoint to get the loan, it's right that they can use any redress against what you still owe them. You saddled yourself with the debt, you are going to have to take some responsibility for that.

I sustained collapsed discs and because of a medical history of back problems that's all they said they would cover although they were aware of my previous history it was on the ppi

dunstonh

if the debt is written off why can they hold money back that I should have been entitled to

An agreement by the lender to not use the courts to come after you for the money is just that. However, not only have they not received payment for the money you borrowed, you also want to get more money out of them now. The law allows them to offset and the regulator allows them. And as said, it is quite logical for that to be the case.

-taff

JACKCAT wrote: »

I sustained collapsed discs and because of a medical history of back problems that's all they said they would cover although they were aware of my previous history it was on the ppi

That makes you ineligible for the PPI but the loan would still have to be paid.

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

That makes you ineligible for the PPI

If the OP was ineligible then why did the policy pay out for three months?
Seems to have been partly ineligible,I agree.
All of this is moot of course, as the Bank have already agreed to pay redress (albeit offset)