We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Studio PPI reclaim
ltrenell
Posts: 11 Forumite
Hi everyone, I hope someone can help me?
I was sent a letter from Studio saying I may have possibly been mis-sold PPI and had to fill a form out asking about my circumstances. To be honest I couldn't remember as it was a while ago so filled it out to the best of my knowledge. I did pay for it and was off work with depression for several months and when I tried to claim they said depression was not covered so I would still have to pay. Of course my wages were reduced and I got into debt but they still charged me PPI even though I couldn't claim. I filled the form off as I was never aware depression wasn't covered (apparently it isn't an illness to their insurance company).
I was sent this letter back:
Thank you for contacting us in relation to the sale of your policy and providing us with the opportunity to look into your concerns.
After taking into consideration the evidence and information available to me, I note from our records that the policy was selected whilst submitting an order via the Studio website 8th September 2007. When purchasing goods in this way, at the end of the order process PPP is available to you via the tick box which has a hyperlink directing you to the policy summary terms & conditions.
The PPP text states that by ticking the box, you are confirming you have read the policy summary & terms and conditions. It also declares that you consider yourself eligible to make a claim on the policy and that it meets your demands and needs. Immediately following the commencement of the policy, a copy of the terms & conditions are issued by post, detailing the cancellation rights, along with a welcome letter asking for the documents to be read carefully.
Having concluded a thorough investigation, I am now in a position to provide my findings summarized below:
Existing protection - we were not made aware that you had any other appropriate means by which you could protect yourself
Pre-existing medical conditions- you were not suffering from any pre-existing medical conditions that would affect you full use of the PPP policy
Level of cover- the information provided demonstrated the level of cover was appropriate when taking into account your circumstances at the time of sale
Exclusions-your status at the point of sale confirmed you were not significantly affected by any of the exclusion of limitations associated with you PPP policy.
All rubbish and makes no sense to me but it appears they have wiggled their way out of paying me. Is their anything I can do as I feel they are wrong in not covering depression.
I was sent a letter from Studio saying I may have possibly been mis-sold PPI and had to fill a form out asking about my circumstances. To be honest I couldn't remember as it was a while ago so filled it out to the best of my knowledge. I did pay for it and was off work with depression for several months and when I tried to claim they said depression was not covered so I would still have to pay. Of course my wages were reduced and I got into debt but they still charged me PPI even though I couldn't claim. I filled the form off as I was never aware depression wasn't covered (apparently it isn't an illness to their insurance company).
I was sent this letter back:
Thank you for contacting us in relation to the sale of your policy and providing us with the opportunity to look into your concerns.
After taking into consideration the evidence and information available to me, I note from our records that the policy was selected whilst submitting an order via the Studio website 8th September 2007. When purchasing goods in this way, at the end of the order process PPP is available to you via the tick box which has a hyperlink directing you to the policy summary terms & conditions.
The PPP text states that by ticking the box, you are confirming you have read the policy summary & terms and conditions. It also declares that you consider yourself eligible to make a claim on the policy and that it meets your demands and needs. Immediately following the commencement of the policy, a copy of the terms & conditions are issued by post, detailing the cancellation rights, along with a welcome letter asking for the documents to be read carefully.
Having concluded a thorough investigation, I am now in a position to provide my findings summarized below:
Existing protection - we were not made aware that you had any other appropriate means by which you could protect yourself
Pre-existing medical conditions- you were not suffering from any pre-existing medical conditions that would affect you full use of the PPP policy
Level of cover- the information provided demonstrated the level of cover was appropriate when taking into account your circumstances at the time of sale
Exclusions-your status at the point of sale confirmed you were not significantly affected by any of the exclusion of limitations associated with you PPP policy.
All rubbish and makes no sense to me but it appears they have wiggled their way out of paying me. Is their anything I can do as I feel they are wrong in not covering depression.
0
Comments
-
Unfortunately if the website was an "opt in" i.e. you had to tick a box to say you wanted it (not a pre-ticked box which you had to opt-out of), and it was an online sale (i.e. you didn't have any contact with the bank) then it would fall under "miss-bought" not "miss-sold" as no-one sold it to you and you chose it.
If the Ts & Cs were not read but you ticked the box to say you had read it, you could expect the response you got.
As it is, you have 6 months from this rejection to refer the complaint to the ombudsman (FOS) as the letter should have told you. Expect a wait of 12-24 months and probably rejection unless they decide to auto-pay out to avoid the FOS fee (depends how much you paid as to whether they will fight it).
I believe it is quite common for depression not to be covered (though happy to be corrected)Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thanks for the info, it does say on the letter that I can refer to Ombudsman but as you state it may not be worth it. I am just looking at ways of reclaiming anything I can as I do feel let down by it and if anything it made me feel worse. I was paying almost £15 pm in PPI over 3 years and if I had known I could have had a private health cover. It makes me mad :mad:. Do you think it's worth claiming default charges then?0
-
Thanks for the info, it does say on the letter that I can refer to Ombudsman but as you state it may not be worth it. I am just looking at ways of reclaiming anything I can as I do feel let down by it and if anything it made me feel worse. I was paying almost £15 pm in PPI over 3 years and if I had known I could have had a private health cover. It makes me mad :mad:. Do you think it's worth claiming default charges then?
The banks won the court case about unfair charges back in 2009, you won't get anywhere with that at the moment (depends what happens with that recent lower court case to see if the door is shut again)
As I said you can refer it to the FOS if you feel the rejection was unfair, I couldn't comment on your personal situation as I don't have a copy of the Ts & Cs - if they said depression would not be covered and you ticked a box that said you had read them, they've got you over a barrel
Just bear in mind the delay at the FOS means you won't hear anything for some time. Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards