Is this evidence of ppi?

Mutz

Hi guys

I have always been sure I was given ppi on a loan in 2002 as I was told I had more chance of approval, until now I couldn't remember dates etc tho.. However I just found a letter down the back of a drawer and am wondering is this proof of ppi?

I can't remember loan amount/term length either..

Can I use this to help me get anything back from natwest?

Thanks in advance..

'Natwest 21 June 2002

I am pleased to confirm that your personal loan has now been opened and the account number is *******. The agreed loan amount including the insurance premium has been credited to your Current Account ******* today.

The insurance premium has been debited from your current account and been passed to the insurers.

The first repayment of £** will be debited from your Current Account on 01/08/2002. This sum will be due for payment monthly thereafter, until the loan is repaid.

I am pleased to enclose your Personal Loan Protector Certificate, numbered *******.'

[Deleted User]

Mutz wrote: »

I just found a letter down the back of a drawer and am wondering is this proof of ppi?

PPI isn't somehow "wrong", in order for it to be refunded it has to have been mis-sold to you.There is no point simply presenting evidence that you had PPI, you have to couple it with a robust mis-selling complaint.

Mutz

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

PPI isn't somehow "wrong", in order for it to be refunded it has to have been mis-sold to you.There is no point simply presenting evidence that you had PPI, you have to couple it with a robust mis-selling complaint.

Sorry, I knew it was on the loan as I was told it would enhance the chances of getting the loan accepted, the only reason I haven't made a claim was due to having no paperwork/account numbers/ figures to back up the miss selling.. Furthermore I had full unlimited sick pay through work (HM Forces) back then.. Now I have account numbers I am wondering whether I can pursue a complaint?

Thanks..

[Deleted User]

Mutz wrote: »

Now I have account numbers I am wondering whether I can pursue a complaint?

You could always complain, but if the Bank no longer have records of this old finance you may also be required to provide proof of payments. The letter you have is only the initial confirmation of what was agreed with the Bank. You could have cancelled the insurance during the "cooling off" period you would have enjoyed and paid nothing at all.

Mutz

I have a statement that shows the first payment at least..

Thanks..

McKneff

You still have to provide evidence that it was miss sold, being told it would enhance your chances is not evidence of miss selling, You would have to have it in writing. Neither is having full sick pay from an employer.


I would think you would be flogging a dead horse and the ombudsman wouldn't look at it either as it is pre regulation.

Mutz

Thanks for the comments.. Nothing to be lost I guess

[Deleted User]

McKneff wrote: »

ombudsman wouldn't look at it either as it is pre regulation.

It's not pre-regulation for Banks which had their own code of conduct prior to 2005.So the Ombudsman can indeed be called upon when the complaint is rejected.

McKneff wrote: »

being told it would enhance your chances is not evidence of miss selling

It is mis-selling, but it's a very weak "hearsay" complaint for which no evidence can be provided.

Mutz wrote: »

Nothing to be lost I guess

Just the price of some stamps...

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Dear OP
Sometimes you read what looks like it is intended to be advice but you wonder are they trying to be helpful or do they have an agenda? The rather obtuse comment about the cooling off period did it for me. As if that was ever on a loan customer's mind, eh? Get the loan and then split, or spit, the insurance back out of it ... 14 days ... easy-peasy! What bunkum to suggest it could even cross a mere customer's mind. It takes a rather more devious mind to even suggest it I dare suggest.

Almost all PPI was mis-sold of course. In the hands of bankworkers it was always wrong.

The mis-selling was directed from the highest levels in the bank. Anyone in financial services not suffering from cultural brainwash knows it. The banks simply did not and would not employ staff who had the faintest idea about how to give proper insurance advice beyond saying what they needed to get the commission they earned, or to allay fear of losing their jobs if they did not sell.

2002 was only 12 short years ago. The banking crisis reached a head 6 years ago. PPI mis-selling was already causing massive complaints well before that. It was only in 2010 that the FSA finally made the banks stop selling single premium PPI like yours because the banks just would not tidy up their act. If PPI was a valid product, why would the FSA ban it?

The organisation that took your money was a bank. They keep meticulous records.

You can ask them for the records of the premiums they deducted. You can allow them to have a copy of the letter you have found to focus their attention on the sort of reference numbers they can put into their fancy computer systems to unravel the story of what it was they did to you, and when and for how long. If they can't provide the full SP, what kind of bank is that?

Make sure you don't let that original letter out of your sight.

Contrary to the "advice" you have received in earlier posts (and that is the second reason I will take it with a pinch of salt) the letter you received is in fact the most important piece of evidence that the insurance was sold to you. As soon as you signed an agreement and gave the bank their copy, the deal was sealed and they immediately credited your chosen bank account with the loan amount you wanted and gave you the letter you have found.

However, they simultaneously debited your new loan account with a much bigger amount to pay for the dirty-great single premium insurance they stuck to your name (which you didn't want or need but had to endure being "sold" to you). From that massive extra amount they lent you, but which you never saw, they credited themselves immediately with a handsome insurance commission which was shared out right up the line to regional managers and beyond, and they credited their preferred underwriter (at many banks the preferred underwriter was an in-house insurance company sitting in some tax avoiding location like Dublin, Ireland) with what was left of that extra lump they lent you just so they could call it insurance business and grab it. They were so anxious to get the "insurance" business that the insurance premium you supposedly voluntarily paid never even touched the sides of your bank account. They had it away directly.

Actually I have not seen that as an argument used before in PPI reclaiming although it should have been, so it may have been. I.e. the banks were so anxious that you should buy an insurance policy that they did not even trust you even for a single minute with the money they lent you to buy it. Not even a simultaneous pair of "in and out" transactions in your bank account for the large single premium they made part of your loan. It was a one-legged arrangement all done "off bank account". Sure, you soon saw it inflating your loan account balance out of sight, but try to find evidence of you paying an insurance premium out of your current account and you won't find any. All there is there is loan payments. I have never thought of this before, but it strikes me now that the way they all did it was a form of false accounting! What they say you borrowed to pay an insurance premium was never in your possession. It was totally abstract debt which they called "PPI insurance". I also happen to know that the premiums they charged for it were totally arbitrary and were in no way calculated on any proper assessment of risk. An effective insurance cartel operated amongst the banks. PPI premiums soon became more or less identical at all the banks.

That insurance premium part of your loan was never your money to decide how you would spend it. That alone is why they should sing for it. Disgraceful processes designed by disgraceful human beings.

One thing is for sure. Had you not signed the agreement, there would have been no loan unless you were extremely clued up and able to stick their process to them right where the sun doesn't shine. Few of us customers are so capable. Almost all of them (bankworkers from cashiers upwards) are culpable, and if they are still employed at banks then be under no illusion, they will remain so into retirement.

[Deleted User]

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

The rather obtuse comment about the cooling off period did it for me.

That "rather obtuse" comment is likely to be how the Bank wriggles outs of paying any redress. If the Op has no further evidence of payment, the Bank will likely claim they have no details of the finance and will refuse payment on that basis alone, regardless of the strength (or weakness) of his complaint.


I have no "agenda", I won my own PPI complaint two years ago to the tune of £20,000.

back-on-track_2

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

Dear OP
Sometimes you read what looks like it is intended to be advice but you wonder are they trying to be helpful or do they have an agenda? The rather obtuse comment about the cooling off period did it for me. As if that was ever on a loan customer's mind, eh? Get the loan and then split, or spit, the insurance back out of it ... 14 days ... easy-peasy! What bunkum to suggest it could even cross a mere customer's mind. It takes a rather more devious mind to even suggest it I dare suggest.

Almost all PPI was mis-sold of course. In the hands of bankworkers it was always wrong.

The mis-selling was directed from the highest levels in the bank. Anyone in financial services not suffering from cultural brainwash knows it. The banks simply did not and would not employ staff who had the faintest idea about how to give proper insurance advice beyond saying what they needed to get the commission they earned, or to allay fear of losing their jobs if they did not sell.

2002 was only 12 short years ago. The banking crisis reached a head 6 years ago. PPI mis-selling was already causing massive complaints well before that. It was only in 2010 that the FSA finally made the banks stop selling single premium PPI like yours because the banks just would not tidy up their act. If PPI was a valid product, why would the FSA ban it?

The organisation that took your money was a bank. They keep meticulous records.

You can ask them for the records of the premiums they deducted. You can allow them to have a copy of the letter you have found to focus their attention on the sort of reference numbers they can put into their fancy computer systems to unravel the story of what it was they did to you, and when and for how long. If they can't provide the full SP, what kind of bank is that?

Make sure you don't let that original letter out of your sight.

Contrary to the "advice" you have received in earlier posts (and that is the second reason I will take it with a pinch of salt) the letter you received is in fact the most important piece of evidence that the insurance was sold to you. As soon as you signed an agreement and gave the bank their copy, the deal was sealed and they immediately credited your chosen bank account with the loan amount you wanted and gave you the letter you have found.

However, they simultaneously debited your new loan account with a much bigger amount to pay for the dirty-great single premium insurance they stuck to your name (which you didn't want or need but had to endure being "sold" to you). From that massive extra amount they lent you, but which you never saw, they credited themselves immediately with a handsome insurance commission which was shared out right up the line to regional managers and beyond, and they credited their preferred underwriter (at many banks the preferred underwriter was an in-house insurance company sitting in some tax avoiding location like Dublin, Ireland) with what was left of that extra lump they lent you just so they could call it insurance business and grab it. They were so anxious to get the "insurance" business that the insurance premium you supposedly voluntarily paid never even touched the sides of your bank account. They had it away directly.

Actually I have not seen that as an argument used before in PPI reclaiming although it should have been, so it may have been. I.e. the banks were so anxious that you should buy an insurance policy that they did not even trust you even for a single minute with the money they lent you to buy it. Not even a simultaneous pair of "in and out" transactions in your bank account for the large single premium they made part of your loan. It was a one-legged arrangement all done "off bank account". Sure, you soon saw it inflating your loan account balance out of sight, but no sign of you paying it out of your current account. I have never thought of this before, but it strikes me now that the way they all did it was a form of false accounting! What they say you borrowed to pay an insurance premium was never in your possession. It was totally abstract.

That insurance premium part of your loan was never your money to decide how you would spend it. That alone is why they should sing for it. Disgraceful processes designed by disgraceful human beings.

One thing is for sure. Had you not signed the agreement, there would have been no loan unless you were extremely clued up and able to stick their process to them right where the sun doesn't shine. Few of us customers are so capable. Almost all of them (bankworkers from cashiers upwards) are culpable, and if they are still employed at banks then be under no illusion, they will remain so into retirement.

Well said :T