assumed monthly payment by Natwest

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

In the original post the OP said they would not have taken the cover due to financial hardship. The idea that this is a popular 'misconception' is no more than one persons opinion just the same as my post.

In my original post, I stated that it was a popular misconception (propogated by CMCs and inaccurate media coverage) that anyone who had a failing identified with their sale was automatically entitled to a full refund. This is not one person's opinion it is fact. In support of this I refer you to DISP app 3.7. The OP's comments are hardly impartial evidence as he is obviously wanting a full refund. Which is why they will look at financial need and eligibility to establish if a prudent person in his position would have thought the cover was a good idea.

'In reviewing your complaint we have taken into account your personal, financial and employment circumstances at the time. Based on these details we believe it is reasonable to assume that you would have been willing to pay the lower monthly cost to protect your loan repayments'.

Banks have not changed their spots and are still managing both the uphold rates and the amount of redress they pay. Consultancy companies that hire the contractors to do this work do not get the contract based on the number of customers they treat fairly they get it by making a pitch to show how much they can save in costs.

Do you have any evidence to support this whatsoever or is it just wild hypothesis/speculation aimed at drumming up business?

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

This.

Offering a refund along the lines that NatWest is only acceptable if they believe that the single premium was unsuitable and that the OP would have gone for a regular premium instead.

If there was another flaw in the sales process, then a refund of this nature is not on and a full refund should be given.

It depends on the nature of the failing, whether it is definite or just alleged and what the likely impact of it was. For example a common one is

Customer - the terms and conditions were not explained to me
Bank - you were sent the policy summary
Customer - I don't remember receiving that.

In this situation, has there been a genuine failing or has the customer just forgotten over the course of time? No proof either way, which is why such a complaint will only be successful if the complainant can prove on the balance of probabilities that they had reason not to want to take the cover (e.g 12 months sick pay, or a significant exclusion which impacts them).

addedvaluebob

There has never been anything wrong with the actual concept of PPI. As dunston points out in another thread any protection is generally a good idea. In this instance it is clear they sold a lump sum which was inappropriate and the OP said he couldn't have afforded the additional cost. In an ideal world we would all have appropriate protection.

addedvaluebob

Insider 101. I may have missed this if you posted it somewhere else. Do you work for a bank or a big financial institution with a vested interest in turning down cases. Your posts all seem very negative towards consumers. If so, I think you should put it in your signature.

As for your comment about drumming up business, I am not sure how you reach this conclusion as I have no business to drum up for.

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Insider 101. I may have missed this if you posted it somewhere else. Do you work for a bank or a big financial institution with a vested interest in turning down cases. Your posts all seem very negative towards consumers. If so, I think you should put it in your signature.

As for your comment about drumming up business, I am not sure how you reach this conclusion as I have no business to drum up for.

As you may have guessed from the name, I have had some personal involvement in the whole PPI saga. However, no I don't work for a bank or any financial institution and I certainly don't have any personal interest in turning down complaints. I do, however, have an interest in speaking facts, based on FCA rules and personal experience, not the usual ill informed tubthumping that goes on in the media or internet boards.

As per my previous post, my comment about it being a popular misconception that anyone who has any failing identified with their sale is entitled to a full refund is based on the rules drafted in black and white by the FCA. The thing about looking at financial need is based on numerous FOS decisions and case studies. Everything I have said is based on factual and logical rationalisation.

addedvaluebob

You still know nothing about their circumstances and your factual and logical rationalisation is no better than anyone else's ill informed tubthumping.

As for my wild hypothesis/speculation I have been involved with financial institutions at the highest level, I have read proposals from the companies pitching for review business, seen the review results when conducting audits and have challenged the unfair treatment of customers. The financial services industry, mainly the banks, have learnt nothing over the last 20 years

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

You still know nothing about their circumstances and your factual and logical rationalisation is no better than anyone else's ill informed tubthumping.

Who said anything about anyone's circumstances? I have freely admitted I do not know the reasons for the Op's complaint or the reasons for the rejection. Therefore, my comments on this thread have been limited to an explanation in layman's terms (obviously not layman enough) of FCA rules and the approach the FOS takes. And yes it is better than other people's ill informed tubthumping because it is based on the rules for investigating PPI complaints set by the regulator, which I have referred to in my earlier post.

michaelweb

Many thanks for all of your comments and helpful tips. I accepted Natwest's offer and they duly transferred the funds into my old Current Account, which I thought was closed, on 22/09/14. I have no internet access to the account and I destroyed the ATM card years ago. I am unable to access the funds via my local branch as well. They supplied me with a telephone number where I was informed that there was an outstanding balance on the loan, which I was aware of, and they would inform me of the outcome. I contacted them on 17/10/14 and was told it would be finalised by 20/10/14 and they would phone me. As i did not receive a call on the said date I called them again today 21/10/14 and was informed that the person I spoke to on the 17th had not been in work since then and they did not know why the case had not been handled. They have said I will receive a letter by Thurday 23rd or Friday 24th stating what will be done. The remaining balance on the loan is less than half of the agreed PPI payment.
Should I now receive further interest on the PPI amount. I'll have to wait and see what the letter will say although I do not have much confidence in receiving it.