Is this evidence of ppi?

Mutz

Ok complaint logged..

They admitted I had the protection without me offering anymore than the account number

dunstonh

There are weak reasons and there are strong reasons. Hearsay complaints are usually rejected on that point due to lack of evidence. Hearsay is a weak complaint reason. Many will go on to be upheld on another point but many will be rejected outright.

Employment benefits can be a strong reason. For example, if the person got 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay and the PPI would not pay out whilst employer benefits were being paid then that is a very strong reason for complaint. However, if its a long term debt (such as mortgage) and the PPI would pay out in addition to employer benefits then that is a weak complaint (and the FOS have been rejecting complaints on that scenario).

Letting people know the weaknesses and strengths in their complaint can only be helpful. This will prevent them wasting energy on weak reasons and focus on the stronger ones.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

societys_child wrote: »

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".

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

The most important part of this complaint is that the PPI was clearly not suitable for the OP's protection requirements in the first place.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team) which was expressed in a way that was likely to discourage from ever making the claim is simply that the OP dared express the bleedin' obvious i.e. that banksellers generally liked to give the impression that unless PPI was bought, the loan might not be forthcoming. That's not hearsay. It's the truth, but it isn't the thing that is most obviously going to make this complaint succeed. Where have either of you pointed out what that thing is??

That thing is the fact that the risk back then of the OP losing income through injury or sickness was already covered by HM Forces, and also the risk of redundancy from HM Forces was hardly great compared for example to "street to seat in 8 weeks" personal bankers selling PPI or else (back out on the street 8 weeks after that), was it? And even if it was, was the OP offered any kind of tailored product? A tailored what? I hear you say ...

Anyway, I see Mutz has made up his or her own mind and got the ball rolling regardless.

[Deleted User]

Mutz wrote: »

They admitted I had the protection without me offering anymore than the account number

That goes in your favour, since it indicates that they do still have records. Do note that "admitting" you had PPI doesn't automatically mean it was mis-sold to you.

Good luck.

Mutz

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

That goes in your favour, since it indicates that they do still have records. Do note that "admitting" you had PPI doesn't automatically mean it was mis-sold to you.

Good luck.

After reading some of the advice/comments here I might have neglected to offer information that I knew I had PPI, when they offered me the confirmation it was attached to the loan I may have changed my angle..