1990s mis-sold PPI - prospects

hiddenmission

Hello,

Reading some very interesting material on PPI, and thought I would put forward my wife's situation for comment /advice - for which I am very grateful.

She has three loans dating from the 1990s (1992-7) - £2k with the Coop and £3k and £5k with Lloyds. Loans were for cars. PPI of £500, £312 and £587 respectively, all lumped on at the start of the loan. (Interest paid on PPI of £96, £46 and £128). All loans were paid off in full and no claims made on the PPI.

Most paperwork retained. All mis-sold, according to my own analysis. Printed tick-boxes, and she was told PPI was a condition of loan, etc.

In brief - assuming the mis-selling can be established - do the claims have legs? Do they pay claims from so long ago?

How long is it likely to take, and what sort of compensation should she expect?

Is it best to write in in the first instance?

Looking back at this, I feel outraged that she was ripped off for so much money.

Many thanks for any comments.

Insider101

You can complain by either telephone or in writing according to preference. 8 weeks is the typical investigation time frame. It is possible to have a complaint upheld from so long ago but it might be difficult on a he- said-she said basis.

[Deleted User]

hiddenmission wrote: »

Printed tick-boxes

These alone are not evidence of mis-selling. Only a pre-populated PPI box for an online application is deemed an unfair practice. What you describe sounds like a postal application or one signed in branch.

In addition being told that PPI was a condition of the loan when it wasn't is certainly mis-selling, but what evidence do you have of this?

sun73

Your wife can claim from as far back as 1990, I had one upheld from 1991. Its very helpful to her case that she's still got the paperwork, as I'm pretty sure the banks won't!


All she has to do is download the online ppi questionnaire from Financial Ombudsman Service website, give reasons why it was mis-sold e.g. single upfront premium, send photocopies of the loan documents and send it to each lender. They might ask you for bank statements as proof of payment. Best of luck.

[Deleted User]

hiddenmission wrote: »

PPI of £500, £312 and £587 respectively, all lumped on at the start of the loan.

This needs to be the basis of any complaint you make.

hiddenmission

Thanks for your replies. I think the applications were probably phone/post. She recalls being told that PPI was a requirement - but how to prove it... how would anyone prove anything from that far back without contemporaneous notes or a signed affidavit from the loan shark...? Is she expected to have taped the phone calls?

I've also got the ombudsman forms. Curious to know why the up front PPI payment should be the basis of the complaint - I can see that it's more costly over the life of the loan. I would have thought that another basis would be that a £2k product could never be insured for £500 in any reasonable transaction.

Thanks again.

sun73

hiddenmission wrote: »

Thanks for your replies. I think the applications were probably phone/post. She recalls being told that PPI was a requirement - but how to prove it... how would anyone prove anything from that far back without contemporaneous notes or a signed affidavit from the loan shark...? Is she expected to have taped the phone calls?

I've also got the ombudsman forms. Curious to know why the up front PPI payment should be the basis of the complaint - I can see that it's more costly over the life of the loan. I would have thought that another basis would be that a £2k product could never be insured for £500 in any reasonable transaction.

Thanks again.

The Financial Ombudsman website explains it better, basically single upfront premium is a relevant consideration in a FOS referral, they would ask the business to refund or cancel the policy. Go with that reason if it applies in your wife's loans.

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

These alone are not evidence of mis-selling. Only a pre-populated PPI box for an online application is deemed an unfair practice. What you describe sounds like a postal application or one signed in branch.

If you had to tick the box to opt out of cover, that would be the part equivalent. It is also easier to prove (if a copy of the application still exists) because the actual words will condemn the bank.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you had to tick the box to opt out of cover, that would be the part equivalent. It is also easier to prove (if a copy of the application still exists) because the actual words will condemn the bank.

I haven't heard of any instances where the Banks used a tick box on postal applications to opt out of PPI?

I do agree if this were the case it would be obvious mis-selling.

[Deleted User]

hiddenmission wrote: »

She recalls being told that PPI was a requirement - but how to prove it... how would anyone prove anything from that far back without contemporaneous notes or a signed affidavit from the loan shark...? Is she expected to have taped the phone calls?

You've just detailed exactly why such a complaint would be an easy rejection for the Bank. You would be making an unsubstantiated accusation for which you can provide no evidence.

hiddenmission wrote: »

Curious to know why the up front PPI payment should be the basis of the complaint - I can see that it's more costly over the life of the loan. I would have thought that another basis would be that a £2k product could never be insured for £500 in any reasonable transaction.

Forget the "reasonable transaction" train of thought and concentrate on the paying of the loan upfront, thereby unfairly attracting extra interest.

addedvaluebob

You've just detailed exactly why such a complaint would be an easy rejection for the Bank. You would be making an unsubstantiated accusation for which you can provide no evidence.

Forget this, lump sum up front PPI is completely unsupportable, you incur unnecessary initial costs and then interest on the amount charged. It is very disappointing to see such comments on here suggesting it would be an easy rejection