Payment Protection Question

MarkyMarkD

Roman_Coin_Man wrote: »

Do not misunderstand Markymarkd, and maybe I should have made this clearer. It is a joint card account although because the card spawned from my wifes original bank account, the bank has me down as a secondary card holder. As joint card holders we never knew that there was a difference between us, and believed that the PPI covered both our incomes. We are genuinely shocked to find that apparently it does not.

There is no such thing as a joint credit card account. All credit card accounts are in single names and any secondary card holders have no rights or responsibilities. As the secondary card holder isn't responsible for repayment, the secondary card holder isn't insured either.

And Markymarkd, you state that taking the household income into account is normal practice. I would venture that if that is the case then it is a deeply flawed practice that should be reviewed.

You haven't explained why you think this is flawed. If the household has an adequate income to cover the household's outgoings, there's no reason to assume that the bill won't get paid.

There is no way we would have taken out, and continued to pay for, an insurance that nearly costs what my wife was earning per year if we knew that it only covered her earnings. And therefore as far as taking valid claims to the FOS to prevent cloggin up of the system, the last time I looked, the misselling of financial products has always been a valid case. At least it has been since I was a LAUTRO qualified financial adviser, so going back 20 years or so!

You will have had a statement of the insurance cover sent to you immediately on signing up for the policy and it will have clearly stated what was covered. As a qualified financial adviser, I would have expected you to have read this important document! Your OP didn't say that your wife was told that your income was covered - it sounds a lot more like she, or you, wrongly assumed that it was. Customer misunderstanding doesn't equal mis-selling.

P.S. When I first rang to check how we could make a claim on the PPI, the initial rep I spoke to said that she wasn't sure but she thought that the secondary card holder would be covered under this PPI, and it was only after some 10 minutes of me being on hold and her asking around that she decided this wasn't the case. Might kind of explain our lack of understanding if the bank themselves are not sure!

Just because a member of bank staff, who wasn't reading your policy document, didn't understand that you weren't covered doesn't mean that it's not obvious if you DO have the document in front of you.

Quillion

Can you cancel the PPI on credit cards? How easy is it to do this? TIA

swayze

Quillion wrote: »

Can you cancel the PPI on credit cards? How easy is it to do this? TIA

Very easy. Just phone up straight away and cancel. You might be charged for the following month though.

swayze

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

There is no such thing as a joint credit card account. All credit card accounts are in single names and any secondary card holders have no rights or responsibilities. As the secondary card holder isn't responsible for repayment, the secondary card holder isn't insured either.

You haven't explained why you think this is flawed. If the household has an adequate income to cover the household's outgoings, there's no reason to assume that the bill won't get paid.

You will have had a statement of the insurance cover sent to you immediately on signing up for the policy and it will have clearly stated what was covered. As a qualified financial adviser, I would have expected you to have read this important document! Your OP didn't say that your wife was told that your income was covered - it sounds a lot more like she, or you, wrongly assumed that it was. Customer misunderstanding doesn't equal mis-selling.

Just because a member of bank staff, who wasn't reading your policy document, didn't understand that you weren't covered doesn't mean that it's not obvious if you DO have the document in front of you.

Well said.

Roman_Coin_Man

Well, for all of these "experts" that stated that we had no case, I hate to resurrect the thread, but it seems logical to do so following the new moves regarding PPI. So a quick re-cap of what happened and an update on where we are.

1) Despite writing a letter and telling them that we believed we were mis-sold PPI, the bank declined to agree, and wrote back to the same affect. However, as we now see from the £Bs put aside to pay off the mess caused, and estimates of 70% of all PPI being mis-sold, this is a huge problem, and so we continued to fight. Please remember that amongst other definitions, PPI is considered mis-sold if the person it was sold to was someone that could not use it. As my wife was a stay at home mum when she took out the card, and actually not my wife at the time, I reckon she qualifies quite well in that category.

2) Despite a request in the letter we sent them in 2007 to cancel the PPI, we finally got the policy cancelled in 2009. We have obviously complained about this and requested a refund of payments, stating that we had notified them in writing in 2007. However, despite us having letters from them declining our original 2007 claim for mis-sold PPI, the same letter we asked them to cancel the policy with immediate effect, they now claim that they have no record of us ever contacting them prior to 2009!

However, now that the banks have acknowledged that they may have done wrong, and have put aside a lot of money to pay off the wrongdoing, our case is being reviewed again. It looks likely that we will be receiving back most, if not all, of the PPI payments we have made, totalling some £8k or more.

Good job I didn't listen to the "experts" that responded negatively to my original posts. Sorry to say that whilst Martin seems to do a good job, many of his acolytes on this site leave a lot to be desired, and whilst they offer their opinions for free, I believe that is because they wouldn't be able to charge for such poor advice.

redpete

The original discussion (4 years ago!) and advice was about whether you could claim against your wife's PPI for your redundancy. The advice was that you couldn't and there's nothing here to say that you can now.

You now say that you might have a case for mis-selling, a different argument and not one that contradicts the previous advice.

Roman_Coin_Man

redpete wrote: »

The original discussion (4 years ago!) and advice was about whether you could claim against your wife's PPI for your redundancy. The advice was that you couldn't and there's nothing here to say that you can now.

You now say that you might have a case for mis-selling, a different argument and not one that contradicts the previous advice.

er, redpete,
if you looked up, or down, the thread a little, you will find the following line from me "we were never made aware of any differentiation of primary and secondary card holder cover, and as such I believe that you are right and the PPI was missold to us." I was claiming that the PPI had been mis-sold as it didn't do what we expected it to do, and much of the advice was, in summary, "Tough luck, you should have been more careful".
I am in no way claiming that I can now claim for my redundancy, I was, and still are, claiming that the PPI had been mis-sold. I feel that my point has been proven, and whilst I am saddened to see that so many people got caught up in the same scam, I am pleased to see that the perpetrators of the scam are now having to pay much of their ill-gotten gains back.

Roman_Coin_Man

Hi All,
Just as an update to this thread I wanted to share some news with you. I know that I started my battle with the bank over 4 years ago, and despite having 2 previous claims for missold PPI being dismissed by the bank, we have now received confirmation of the total refund we are going to receive from the now admitted missold PPI. Whilst we thought that the total would be approx £8,000, the actual total the bank has offered is just over £19,200!
All I can say is thank heavens I never listened to the supposed helpful experts that also dismissed my question 4 years ago, and I continued to stand my ground. I feel utterly vindicated, and maybe a certain "Fantastically Fervent MoneySaving Super Fan" should stop giving people advice. If I had listened to him 4 years ago, I would now be nearly £20k worse off! How can that advice be aligned to a site called Money Saving Expert"?