Is this PPI...?

roonaldo

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

I'm not arguing anything, I'm just telling you what criteria the banks are using when making the decision to uphold or defend a claim. The people who are making the decision are told that if the customer says that the cost of the PPI was never explained to them then the claim is immediately upheld. Any other evidence supplied is irrelevant.

really? this is new. I've not come accross any firm that has automatically upheld due to a cost allegation. Documentary evidence is king, not frivilous allegations.

Makes no difference if you submit one claim or 47 they are all lumped together as one case and dealt with by one person. The criteria on which the decision is made it the same. Refer to my above comment.

what are you on about?

*~Zephyr~*

roonaldo wrote: »

really? this is new. I've not come accross any firm that has automatically upheld due to a cost allegation. Documentary evidence is king, not frivilous allegations.

Really? How many banks have you worked for? How many PPI claim departments have you worked in?

*~Zephyr~*

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Where are you getting this information? I'm afraid it's clearly not accurate in any way.

Halifax, BOS, Lloyds. They are repaying PPI on the basis that the customer was not told and did not know how much it would cost. The bank does not have records or proof of what was and wasn't said at the time the PPI was taken out and, according to FCA rules they "must not treat the customer unfairly" by making them prove what they were or were not told.

This is coming from someone who is dealing with these complaints; paid out 21 case last week alone on allegations of cost and who's team are passing over three hundred claims a week.

dunstonh

We know banks are auto upholding a good proportion of complaints which result in a low amount of payout (cheaper to settle than to argue). However, I have not heard of anything that suggests that certain allegations (which are unprovable) are being auto-upheld.

Sure, some banks are easier than others. Halifax seem to more or less auto payout on their MPPI segment regardless of reason for example. However, not seen any FOS decisions that support the view that saying cost was not explained will be an auto-win.

edit as post crossed with one above...

Halifax, BOS, Lloyds. They are repaying PPI on the basis that the customer was not told and did not know how much it would cost. The bank does not have records or proof of what was and wasn't said at the time the PPI was taken out and, according to FCA rules they "must not treat the customer unfairly" by making them prove what they were or were not told.

The banks you list do not surprise me as they are most inconsistent with complaint handling and do have an auto payout agenda. However, your quoting of FCA guidelines is inaccurate. The FOS deal with unprovable allegations on a daily basis and rule against consumers due to lack of evidence. There is no FCA requirement that the lender has to have the evidence or payup.

roonaldo

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

Really? How many banks have you worked for? How many PPI claim departments have you worked in?

I've worked in Financial Services for 20 years. I worked in three complaints departments and adjudicated at FOS, now I do audit stuff for a firm. Firms look at PPI complaints in line with DISP and PS10/12. This certainly inst Treating Customers Fairly either.

You have obviously come across a bank that auto upholds stuff, which sounds like Lloyds Banking Group about 3 years ago. The sale of PPI should be looked at on their own merits.

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Claims management companies cannot somehow magic up documentation.

I would not put it beyond them - they make up plenty of other things that are pure fiction.

Brokerwise

magpiecottage wrote: »

I would not put it beyond them - they make up plenty of other things that are pure fiction.

You are forgetting the PPI database

*~Zephyr~*

roonaldo wrote: »

You have obviously come accross a bank that auto upholds stuff, which sounds like Lloyds Banking Group about 3 years ago. The sale of PPI should be looked at on their own merits.

Lloyds three years ago and Lloyds today. They are training their claim handlers to auto uphold on the basis of cost as a matter of course. They also don't ask for evidence if you claim that you had, for example, 2 x salary death in service benefit. IF you tell them you did, they uphold. They may phone and ask you if you have a copy of your employment contract to show this, but every day customers say that they no longer have the contract, or they've lost it in a house move or the dog ate it and the claims are still being upheld.

You say documentary evidence is king? Not at Lloyds Banking Group it isnt.

addedvaluebob

If you think there are grounds for complaint then submit this to the company listing all the reasons you think it was unsuitable. Also check the T & C's of your husbands PHI. If this was in existence at the time of taking the loans and mortgages it would reduce the potential need for PPI cover and should have been taken into account by any provider in determining of the policies were suitable at the point of sale.

If the policies would not pay out for self employed people or the circumstances allowing a claim were limited, this should have been pointed out to you before going ahead with the policy and is another significant pointer to a mis-sale if it wasn't done.

If you want to use a CMC then follow the guidelines on this site or ask your friend about the company they used as clearly they did something for the fee given she was rejected first time round

roonaldo

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

The bank does not have records or proof of what was and wasn't said at the time the PPI was taken out and, according to FCA rules they "must not treat the customer unfairly" by making them prove what they were or were not told.

Hold on, you implied they are all auto upholding just because costs are mentioned. Now you say if there is no evidence. A firm can defend costs if there is clear proof costs (and we are talking about monthly costs here not single premium lumped on loan) were disclosed. Of course its likely if costs cannot be defended then the complaint may be upheld.