how to begin reclaiming PPI

dunstonh

Okay, so who is going to write to Martin and ask him to remove this misleading reference from the PPI reclaim guide then or are you all suggesting that every PPI plan was sold correctly and every single complaint was upheld for some other reason.

You do realise that Martin makes mistakes. Just today he is in the media saying that the MAS has wasted public money. Yet the MAS is not funded by taxpayer. It is funded by a levy on financial services companies.

This site used to recommend structured products (post office version being frequently used). It did not carry the risks of structured products. Very similar to Santander who did not carry the correct risks on their structured products and got fined for it. Yet no fine for MSE. This site used to carry a pensions article that highlighted an Aviva stakeholder pension version in its example that was withdrawn from business years earlier (and replaced with a more expensive one. And the article still existed when Aviva issued another version with lower pricing years later). If an adviser used that for their research, it would be a mis-sale. This site is not perfect.

The position of this site is consumer biased. That is its purpose. Didnt it used to say Consumer Revenge as a tag? Articles have to be short, snappy and make a statement rather than be detailed and go into the subject in depth. So, things get missed off or simplified. In some cases, that is acceptable and understandable. In some cases, it is not. In respect of PPI, it is certain that some people were misled but it is wrong to say that PPI was hidden. Some of the mis-sales relied on people not reading the documentation. That would be a fairer statement.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

You do realise that Martin makes mistakes.

Well he didn't make a mistake selling MSE; it made him £millions.

Regardless, he didn't write the MSE advice article!:p

addedvaluebob

or didn’t give the consumer basic information about the policy and how it worked

So how would people have known that PPI was in the deal if the sales person did not give them the information. Whether people think this is all a myth is irrelevant, statistically speaking, some of the millions of PPI complainants will have made valid complaints that they were not told about the PPI and the complaint will have been upheld for that reason.

roonaldo

dunstonh wrote: »

You do realise that Martin makes mistakes.

Like suggesting investing in Icelandic banks!

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

or didn’t give the consumer basic information about the policy and how it worked

So how would people have known that PPI was in the deal if the sales person did not give them the information. Whether people think this is all a myth is irrelevant, statistically speaking, some of the millions of PPI complainants will have made valid complaints that they were not told about the PPI and the complaint will have been upheld for that reason.

I have no financial background, I have no financial qualifications.

If I want a finance product (such as a paid for bank account, balance transfer card, ISA etc) I research the product carefully and look for advice about it online. If my credit card has an odd payment on it I question it, dig through my emails to see if some company has a different name etc - point is, I question why I am paying for something I do not recognise.

Unless you have stats you cannot use the "statistically speaking" argument, it's as meaningless as saying "statistically speaking some people were given refunds specifically because they emailed the CEO".

addedvaluebob

Statistically speaking, simply means that in all the millions of upheld cases and mis-sold policies some of the PPI was not declared. The point is not how many one way or the other.

Statistically speaking there is life on other planets, can I prove it no.

It is regularly pointed out that everyone is entitled to their opinion on these forums, this is my opinion.

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Statistically speaking, simply means that in all the millions of upheld cases and mis-sold policies some of the PPI was not declared.

No it wasnt, see previous posts, PPI can rarely be "not declared" and cannot be "hidden". FOS nor Martin Lewis have ever said this either. I think you have misunderstood. PPI has been mis-sold for other reasons.

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Statistically speaking there is life on other planets

Since there are no statistics even suggesting there is life on other planets, you cannot use the phrase "statistically speaking" in that context. By the same token, there are no statistics recording that anyone had a complaint about "hidden" PPI upheld.

Has this forum really plunged to the depths of having to argue semantics?

addedvaluebob

Absolutely, this is an open forum for anyone to post and discuss the points that are raised, no one needs to agree or disagree with any point that is raised

magpiecottage

There is, it seems to me, a fundamental flaw in the argument that "hidden" PPI was included.

That is that, if it were true then, by definition, it would not be apparent to anybody complaining about it, so a complaint about it would fail.

However, it is possible for other issues to be identified which might give rise to a complaint being upheld.

I have a case, not about PPI, that I am currently looking at where the allegations are all easily defensible but I am probably going to uphold on a rather different issue that I have identified.