Barclays PPI - Partial Refund advice needed

Vickie0785

In June 2013, we received 'partial refunds' for 3 loans we had with Barclays in the past - the loans were all settled before we made the PPI claim. The letter accompanying all the PPI breakdown states as follows:

'We have found that in this instance a regular premium PPI would have been better suited to your needs. This would have been paid in addition to your monthly loan repayments, so you would not have paid interest. Whereas in your case, single premium PPI was added as a lump sum to the overall value of your loans'

We accepted their settlement offer. Only recently were we made aware that some banks (including Barclays) had miscalculated PPI claims - basically suggesting the bank themselves were not wrong in selling us the PPI, they just sold us the wrong type.

We wrote to Barclays challenging their settlement offer, stating that we had never asked for any PPI policy to be included with any of the loans as we had savings and benefits through my husbands workplace to cover the payments should we need to.

We have now received a response from Barclays saying that they have taken a complete review of our claim and they stand by their original calculation. Their letter states that we have the option of contacting the FOS for an independent review but the FOS would be unlikely to take it further as our claim was settled more than 6 months ago.

I just wanted to check if this is worth taking any further as if we had been aware of this information at the time, then we certainly wouldn't have accepted the offer. I can't see how Barclays can make the assumption that we would have been suited to an alternative PPI policy if we didn't want any policy to start off with.

I would be grateful for any advice.

Kind Regards

[Deleted User]

Vickie0785 wrote: »

I can't see how Barclays can make the assumption that we would have been suited to an alternative PPI policy if we didn't want any policy to start off with.

The Bank has refunded the difference between a "front-loaded" PPI policy and a fairer separate policy on which you wouldn't have paid extra interest. This will have been decided on the basis that the information they have indicates that you did need the insurance and met the eligibility criteria.

You really should have queried this a year ago if you wanted to make Ombudsman referral.

Remember that you did actually accept the redress as a "full and final" settlement.

Insider101

It's not a case of "miscalculating" the redress. They have calculated it based on the approach they propose. They have clearly spelled out how they have come to their decision (a fact which you have acknowledged above) and you have signed an acceptance as full and final settlement. If you wanted to argue the decision then the time to do it would have been before accepting the offer. The FOS is relatively strict on the six months rule. Saying you didn't read the decision letter properly before signing your acceptance is unlikely to be accepted as good reason.

sun73

Vickie0785 wrote: »

In June 2013, we received 'partial refunds' for 3 loans we had with Barclays in the past - the loans were all settled before we made the PPI claim. The letter accompanying all the PPI breakdown states as follows:

'We have found that in this instance a regular premium PPI would have been better suited to your needs. This would have been paid in addition to your monthly loan repayments, so you would not have paid interest. Whereas in your case, single premium PPI was added as a lump sum to the overall value of your loans'

We accepted their settlement offer. Only recently were we made aware that some banks (including Barclays) had miscalculated PPI claims - basically suggesting the bank themselves were not wrong in selling us the PPI, they just sold us the wrong type.

We wrote to Barclays challenging their settlement offer, stating that we had never asked for any PPI policy to be included with any of the loans as we had savings and benefits through my husbands workplace to cover the payments should we need to.

We have now received a response from Barclays saying that they have taken a complete review of our claim and they stand by their original calculation. Their letter states that we have the option of contacting the FOS for an independent review but the FOS would be unlikely to take it further as our claim was settled more than 6 months ago.

I just wanted to check if this is worth taking any further as if we had been aware of this information at the time, then we certainly wouldn't have accepted the offer. I can't see how Barclays can make the assumption that we would have been suited to an alternative PPI policy if we didn't want any policy to start off with.

I would be grateful for any advice.

Kind Regards

Is this case one of those "comparative redress" complaints which has recently been looked at by the FCA or FOS and they came to the conclusion that a business should either, uphold in full and not impose a restriction, or reject? Can any of the experts on the forum clarify?

[Deleted User]

sun73 wrote: »

Is this case one of those "comparative redress" complaints

Yes, but MSE rather gave the (false) impression that this was not a legitimate redress...

sun73 wrote: »

FCA or FOS and they came to the conclusion that a business should either, uphold in full and not impose a restriction, or reject

I'm not aware of any such ruling by either body

Insider101

sun73 wrote: »

Is this case one of those "comparative redress" complaints which has recently been looked at by the FCA or FOS and they came to the conclusion that a business should either, uphold in full and not impose a restriction, or reject? Can any of the experts on the forum clarify?

Yes your understanding is completely incorrect. The FCA's own rule book explicitly states that firms are entitled to offer comparative redress where they think it appropriate. FOS also recognise it as a legitimate approach. Obviously in some cases there will be a disagreement over whether comparative or full redress is appropriate and the Ombudsman is available to decide on such cases. However, not when the offer was sent a year ago and has already been accepted in full settlement.

The articles which you are referring to on the subject were unprofessional, badly written and factually incorrect.

dunstonh

Is this case one of those "comparative redress" complaints which has recently been looked at by the FCA or FOS and they came to the conclusion that a business should either, uphold in full and not impose a restriction, or reject? Can any of the experts on the forum clarify?

Neither have an issue with that redress. Indeed, the FCA guidelines include it as a valid refund method. Have you got a source we can look at? (and not the media articles that completely got comparative redress wrong a month or so back)

Effectively, when a complaint has no merit but the policy was single premium, then the difference between monthly and single premium should be repaid. So, in your complaint, they found no wrong doing other than it being single premium. Hence the difference.

As the bank has made reference to it being over 6 months ago, this would indicate it is now timebarred.