Is this PPI...?

roonaldo

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

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.

Yeah thats why Lloyds are in a mess and got fined a while back. Still making a balls up of everything then!

*~Zephyr~*

roonaldo wrote: »

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.

No, what I said was claims are being upheld when customers say they didn't know how much it was going to cost. Yes, you're right in saying that a firm can defend costs if there is clear proof costs BUT Lloyds don't have the records to prove whether the customer was told or not, so they are upholding just in case the customer is right.

If costs aren't mentioned however, then this is clearly a moot point. And the decision is based on other "evidence". But as I said, they are upholding on customer say so, and not insisting that documentary evidence is provided.

To be frank, the number of loan application forms which have been signed by a bank employee where the customer should have signed is shocking. The bank deserves all the pain it can get.

And the amount they are paying the claims handlers to sort this is astonishing. Horrible job - high pressured, but very well paid.

Brokerwise

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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

I do not think any of that will have a bearing on a 1994 sale

roonaldo

So basically with Lloyds?

Customer A - alleges a few genuine mis-sale allegations, but costs not mentioned. Complaint gets rejected.

Customer B- throws in a bogus cost allegation but Lloyds may have evidence to defend it, but because cost mentioned - complaint upheld.

Hope the FCA reads this. TCF?

magpiecottage

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

Halifax

i.e. Lloyds Bank

BOS

i.e. Lloyds Bank

Lloyds

i.e. - er ...

So just one bank then.

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.

That is not what DISP APP 3 says.

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.

*~Zephyr~* wrote: »

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.

Given that PPI is not life cover, this is disconcerting.

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.

Given that we, as taxpayers are having to meet this cost, it is rather disconcerting to find that masses of unsubstantiated allegations are giving rise to many redress payments.

On the other hand, maybe I should ring up and complain. I have never done any business with Lloyds but if they are giving away money count me in

magpiecottage

wintergirl wrote: »

I can confirm that for the first three years of paying for these policys, we had good jobs

That is something of a prerequisite for cover. They are not going to insure you against losing a non-existent income.

which would have paid out sick-leave for 6 months full pay, and 6 months half pay.

That may be an issue but, for mortgage cover, tends not to be because the PPI pays out in addition.

During the next 3 years of making the payments, my hubby had, in addition to the above, a Permanent Healthcare Insurance through his work, that kicked in after 12 months sickness, and paid 75% of basic salary, until retirement.

This is a valuable benefit but will probably not affect the PPI because it would almost certainly pay out in addition and if the PPI ran for a year then it woudl have stopped before the PHI started.

For the final 18 months of making the payments, my husband was self employed on a full time contract. When that contract ended, we went into the Nationwide to see if we could claim on the mortgage insurance. We were told we wouldn't be able to because it only covered employment, so we should have stopped the policy when he became self employed. (Oh and I was also self employed during 4 years of these payments as well.) - Suffice to say we cancelled the MPPI with them immediately.

That would not normally result in an uphold because the policy was suitable at the time it was sold. If they were not told of the changes in your circumstances they cannot really be held responsible.


So I do not think your case is particularly strong. I also recall that, back in the 1990s, the Leeds had a number of mortgage products which made this type of policy compulsory.