Is this evidence of ppi?

societys_child

Originally Posted by TurnUpForTheBooks
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.

Many people have cancelled within the cooling off period, once they received the documentation along with the info that they could indeed cancel it. Not "bumkum"at all.

Mutz

I didn't cancel anything btw

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

societys_child wrote: »

Many people have cancelled within the cooling off period, once they received the documentation along with the info that they could indeed cancel it. Not "bumkum"at all.

Many people? And you know this ... how exactly ? Did they cancel their original loans too and unspend them so they could give the money back to the bank? Or did they get fresh "documentation" confirming that their loan repayments were now significantly reduced and that they were now unprotected ? I could almost believe that last bit, except it would be a brand new loan "without PPI" wouldn't it, which would be used by more internal jiggery-pokery at the bank to pay off the first "cooled-off and cancelled" one ? And the salesman would therefore get a consolation prize of having sold another loan another week, albeit without the kudos of selling PPI this time ... that's how it worked, didn't it? Please Lord give me strength!

I think you may know that much of the "documentation" that was spewed out of bank branch printers at point of sale for loans like this, was not even printed on bank letterhead, such was the frenzy to just sell, print the bloody paperwork on any blank A4 that would fit in the printer tray and come out with a dotted line, get that signed and the punter out the door so the next in the queue could be milked. That's another reason tens of thousands of "loan agreements" could be ruled invalid/unenforceable.

societys_child

Posted by Mutz: I didn't cancel anything btw

I wasn't suggesting you did, just replying to the poster and his "bunkum" comment.

*There have been threads where the complainant believed they had paid ppi when in fact they had cancelled within the cooling off period, but as it was so long ago, had "forgotten" and were relying on the initial offer letter.

societys_child

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

Many people? And you know this ... how exactly ?

Read through the thousands of threads on these boards, you'll find instances.

dunstonh

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

That is an incorrect assumption. Around 2/3rd of loan PPI seems to head that way. A little less for credit card PPI. However, standalone PPI and MPPI sees only a small number of mis-sold complaints upheld. To try an make out almost all PPI was mis-sold is wrong. Banks were the worst offenders but you cannot say all theirs were wrong as they did have genuine distribution channels that did not use the same sales processes. The main issues come from unqualified, unregulated staff with high sales pressure from above.

[Deleted User]

Mutz wrote: »

I didn't cancel anything btw

Don't worry, your thread has rather been hi-jacked for other discussion purposes. The point I was making is that if you don't have documentary proof of payment and the Bank have destroyed their records from eight years ago then they may withhold redress on that basis. You then came back and said you have a statement showing you did pay at least once.

As I said earlier, however, your actual complaint is very weak "hearsay" which puts you at a disadvantage regardless.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Don't worry, your thread has rather been hi-jacked for other discussion purposes. The point I was making is that if you don't have documentary proof of payment and the Bank have destroyed their records from eight years ago then they may withhold redress on that basis. You then came back and said you have a statement showing you did pay at least once.

As I said earlier, however, your actual complaint is very weak "hearsay" which puts you at a disadvantage regardless.

This is a disgraceful piece of advice. You are basically doing the bank's dirty work Moneyineptitude by discouraging the customer from attempting to get redress on the basis that the bank will wriggle and it might be difficult to pin the snakes down.

Of course they will wriggle, that's what they do.

And what is this additional bunkum you have introduced and labelled "hearsay" ? What is "hearsay" about this complaint? The OP said they had unlimited sick pay in HM Forces at the time of taking out the loan. Which part of the PPI contract would have been of any value whatsoever to someone in that position?

I just do not understand where you are coming from on this, Moneyineptitude. You want to tell us that you are some kind of good guy/gal because you succeeded in claiming back £20,000 as a PPI claim, but you don't want the OP to pursue their perfectly valid claim further ? I don't get it.

[Deleted User]

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

This is a disgraceful piece of advice.

Thanks for your contribution to the thread, "TurnUpForTheBooks".

I have at no time discouraged the OP from complaint, I was merely pointing out some of the pitfalls to watch out for. His "hearsay" complaint that he was told the loan was more likely to be approved if he took PPI is a verbal accusation for which he can provide no proof. His employment benefits are indeed evidence that he didn't need the insurance, though.

I don't think long anti-bank diatribes are helpful to the OP or conducive to constructive discussion...

societys_child

And what is this additional bunkum you have introduced and labelled "hearsay" ? What is "hearsay" about this complaint?

Oh, fgs,
post #1: I was told I had more chance of approval - hearsay

Post #3: I was told it would enhance the chances of getting the loan accepted, - hearsay

These are weak reasons, which can't be proved.
The op needs to concentrate on the valid reasons, anyone pointing this out is not doing the banks "dirty work".