Reclaim NatWest PPI from 2001

money_its_a_crime

Hello

I took out two loans with Natwest in 2001, buying Loan Protector Insurance for both.

I still have the Credit Agreement for both loans, and the insurance certificate, with policy number, for one of them.

First question:

The agreements say that I had a cash loan, plus a "premium loan" which included the insurance. The premium loan was added to the cash loan, to create a larger total. Repayments on both loans commenced simultaneously.

This was not made clear to me in the verbal conversation when I was applying for the loans.

Do I have good grounds for compensation? Do I need to do anything more, apart from stating the above in my claim and providing copies of the Credit Agreements?

Second question:

I lost my job while paying back the first loan. I had been told that I could claim on the insurance if unemployed. But I was then told that I needed to get a Jobseekers' Agreement in order to make the claim. I could not get the Agreement - didn't fancy going on the dole - and therefore could not make the claim.

However, when I was being sold the insurance, I was never told I would need to go on the dole/get the Agreement in order to make a claim.

I have a copy of the Involuntary Unemployment Claim Form, partially filled in with previous employer's stamp - but obviously lacking the stamp from the Jobseekers' Centre.

Should I also list the above point, and include a copy of the claim form, in my claim?

Any other advice?

Thank you in advance for your guidance!

dunstonh

Do I have good grounds for compensation?

An unprovable allegation 13 years after the event is very weak.

Do I need to do anything more, apart from stating the above in my claim and providing copies of the Credit Agreements?

Perhaps look at the guide to see if there is anything a bit stronger as a complaint reason.

I lost my job while paying back the first loan. I had been told that I could claim on the insurance if unemployed. But I was then told that I needed to get a Jobseekers' Agreement in order to make the claim. I could not get the Agreement - didn't fancy going on the dole - and therefore could not make the claim.

Being required to sign on is considered an acceptable requirement.

However, when I was being sold the insurance, I was never told I would need to go on the dole/get the Agreement in order to make a claim.

You wouldnt expect to be told that. However, it is a common sense requirement and you should pretty much expect to have to sign on as unemployed to get the unemployment benefit.

Should I also list the above point, and include a copy of the claim form, in my claim?

No. it actually harms your complaint.

[Deleted User]

money_its_a_crime wrote: »

I was never told I would need to go on the dole/get the Agreement in order to make a claim.

Clearly, in order for you to claim on the insurance you'd have to prove you were unemployed. Don't send the abandoned Dole application form to the Bank, it simply indicates you weren't unemployed!
As Dunstonh says, look for stronger complaint reasons that do not focus on verbal conversations for which you have no evidence.

WatchMan

Not being told the true cost of the policy is a very common failing with these types of policies though - in fact, a case recently went through the High Court which focused on how well the business explained the cost of the insurance.

With that said, I would not abandon this particular complaint point. However it does no harm to have a think about other, potentially stronger, complaint reasons.

-taff

money_its_a_crime wrote: »

The agreements say that I had a cash loan, plus a "premium loan" which included the insurance. The premium loan was added to the cash loan, to create a larger total. Repayments on both loans commenced simultaneously.

This was not made clear to me in the verbal conversation when I was applying for the loans.

Single premium. Good complaint reason.

money_its_a_crime wrote: »

I lost my job while paying back the first loan. I had been told that I could claim on the insurance if unemployed. But I was then told that I needed to get a Jobseekers' Agreement in order to make the claim. I could not get the Agreement - didn't fancy going on the dole - and therefore could not make the claim.

However, when I was being sold the insurance, I was never told I would need to go on the dole/get the Agreement in order to make a claim.

I have a copy of the Involuntary Unemployment Claim Form, partially filled in with previous employer's stamp - but obviously lacking the stamp from the Jobseekers' Centre.

Your fault, you should have done this because it would have paid your NI contributions too. Rubbish complaint reason.

dunstonh

Not being told the true cost of the policy is a very common failing with these types of policies though -

What evidence do you have to support that allegation? Chances are you have none. Chances are they have none. So, typically, unprovable allegations fail on that particular point. Hence the importance of having a stronger reason.

money_its_a_crime

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. This is very helpful advice.

I suspect there were other issues too with the way both policies were sold.

I took out the two loans, with policies, in the space of six months. The second loan was larger than the first loan, and effectively replaced it - a re-financing deal. So part of the second loan was being used to pay off the insurance premium that had been charged with the first loan.

Might this be good grounds for complaint?

There were also other issues - but these relate to conversations with bank employees, so I do not have any written evidence for them. For instance, the insurance policies were a pretty hard sell. I was told I really ought to get insurance as it would help my chances of getting the loan. I was warned of the grave risks (harm to credit rating etc.) of taking out the loan without the insurance.

Worth mentioning this too?

In the end, the full loan amount was repaid in the term specified, and no claims were made on the insurance.

My thanks again in advance for any guidance.

-taff

single premium on a consolidated chain of loans - good complaint reason

dunstonh

As taff says, consolidated chains of loans with single premium PPI are good reasons and frequently upheld.

There were also other issues - but these relate to conversations with bank employees, so I do not have any written evidence for them. For instance, the insurance policies were a pretty hard sell. I was told I really ought to get insurance as it would help my chances of getting the loan. I was warned of the grave risks (harm to credit rating etc.) of taking out the loan without the insurance.

Worth mentioning this too?

By all means mention it but you wont win a complaint on that basis. Indeed, being told the risks of not having it helps the bank position. Not harm it.

money_its_a_crime

Much obliged to you both - taff and dustonh.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

What evidence do you have to support that allegation? Chances are you have none. Chances are they have none. So, typically, unprovable allegations fail on that particular point. Hence the importance of having a stronger reason.

Depends how the sale was conducted. But often there are a number of ways of establishing how well costs were disclosed.