Liverpool Victoria refuse to honour PPI Claim

DarkKnight43

They Say they wrote to me in 2009, they refunded £109 interest +8%.
the PPI was for two loans, one of which was a refinancing of the first personal loan, total PPI premiums paid were approx £1500.
I do not recollect any letter or cheque for that matter and more concerning is they said the Cheque was Cashed in july 2009, they use the worded cashed rather than cleared, i would never cash a cheque.
I have consulted the Ombubsman and started a claim via them and also wrote a letter advising of my concerns but would like to know if, in 2009, they would have been able give me a 3 year deadline for reclaiming my PPI ?
To be honest, i was totally ignorant of paying PPI and also i originally took out the loan with Morgan Stanley not Liverpool Victoria. Any Advice or similar experences welcome.

magpiecottage

To literally presented at a bank for cash, a cheque must be "uncrossed". Almost all cheques are preprinted crossed (two parallel lines running vertically on the cheque.

This means they can only be paid into a bank account.

Consequently, "cashed", has, for many years meant "paid", rather than that it was exchanged for cash.

If your original loan was with Morgan Stanley, it would seem not to be a contract to which Liverpool Victoria was a party.

DarkKnight43

thanks for the clarification on cashed or cleared cheques. However Liverpool Victoria are responsible for the Morgan Stanley Loan as they took over their Loan Portfolia in 2005. I'm at the start of a complaint which is being dealt with now by the FOS. One question i want LV to answer is regarding the 3 year from being made aware of PPI mis-selling. I wasnt aware that the FSA had agreed a time scale in 2009 and i've asked for copy of their letter, to see how clear their advice regarding claiming it back was.

dunstonh

I wasnt aware that the FSA had agreed a time scale in 2009

They didn't agree a specific ruling for PPI. The rules which have been in place for decades apply to PPI as any other financial complaint. You have 6 years from the event (purchase) or 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue to make a complaint. They cant use wishy washy things like media coverage but can use things like stopping cover, letter issues etc.

magpiecottage

DarkKnight43 wrote: »

However Liverpool Victoria are responsible for the Morgan Stanley Loan as they took over their Loan Portfolia in 2005.

That does not, in itself mean they are responsible for the sale of the PPI - remember it is a misSALE that counts.

DarkKnight43

another question regarding their letter, they sent me in 2009 (I honestly dont remember this letter) i shall quote the paragraph "we wrote to you on 10 June 2009. This represented a refund of interest charged on your PPI and compensation of 8%. In our explanation letter we prompted you to let us know if you had any other concerns about the sale of your PPI product." This indicates to me, they knew i had been mis-sold PPI, why send me a cheque? (I don't remember the cheque either) this is why i need to see just how clear they were being on their letter because as sure as night follows day, if i had seen away of getting more money, i would have, i was going to the states that year and needed every penny i could get. For instance, back in 2009 i was greener than i am now and wasnt aware PPI didnt really cover self employed people, i was and still are self employed. did their letter clearly show i wasnt covered properly. At the end of the loan in 2009 i had handed over £1500 in PPI payments.

magpiecottage

It sounds like they may have identified that it was single premium and refunded the interest charged on that premium - then added interest to the refunded interest.

That is to say, they realised that they had charged interest which they shouldn't have and made a refund effective at some date prior to that. They then worked on the basis that at the effective date of the refund they had money belonging to you and added interest to it - which was then paid to you as well.

DarkKnight43

magpiecottage wrote: »

It sounds like they may have identified that it was single premium and refunded the interest charged on that premium - then added interest to the refunded interest.

That is to say, they realised that they had charged interest which they shouldn't have and made a refund effective at some date prior to that. They then worked on the basis that at the effective date of the refund they had money belonging to you and added interest to it - which was then paid to you as well.

forgive me but its still not clear to me. when i settled the loan, i settled it a few months early and received a settlement letter which is dated 28 May 2009, 12 days before they say they sent me the letter with £109 cheque, the settlement letter gives me the following details, balance outstanding = 1061.00. Rebate = 0. refund of payment protectiom insurance 1.22. amount payable = 1059.78. this is on LV letter headed paper but signed by Morgan Stanley Customer Services. during the the 5 year period of the loan and the refinancing of the loan, this is the only clear indication that LV were involved in my loans.

magpiecottage

Ah - that suggests it was a refund of part of the PPI premium which in turn suggests it was single premium.

You MAY have a valid complaint. If the supposed letter telling you about the possible missale of PPI cannot be produced by LV it might be worth asking FOS to look at it.