Got paperwork back from Lloyds...

magpiecottage

Nasqueron makes a very good point. If you make an assertion which documentary evidence shows cannot be true than, at best, whoever looks at the complaint is likely to ask themselves what else you have said might be untrue.

At worst I have heard of firms reporting complainants to ActionFraud.

Orville

magpiecottage wrote: »

Nasqueron makes a very good point. If you make an assertion which documentary evidence shows cannot be true than, at best, whoever looks at the complaint is likely to ask themselves what else you have said might be untrue.

At worst I have heard of firms reporting complainants to ActionFraud.

Should the insurance have been done seperately on a seperate set of papers?. As I said earlier rge sheets say including insurance...

starman67

Hello Orville. I only just saw your reply to my post as I've been away.
I don't really have anything new to add to your case but I do agree with what has already been said about your best reason for a complaint being that the PPI would have been front loaded. To the best of my knowledge, PPI on these old policies was nearly always front loaded and that makes a very good basis for a complaint. If you can also then prove that your employment at the time paid sickness benefits, it would also help to counter the bank offering you comparative redress rather than full refund.
Unfortunately I cannot offer any help/interpretation with the results of your DSAR information. I am expecting my results back shortly and am anticipating being in a similar position if the information is difficult for "laymen" like ourselves to interpret. I would be very interested to know how this part of your complaint plays out if you can continue to keep your thread updated please?
Starman

Orville

starman67 wrote: »

Hello Orville. I only just saw your reply to my post as I've been away.
I don't really have anything new to add to your case but I do agree with what has already been said about your best reason for a complaint being that the PPI would have been front loaded. To the best of my knowledge, PPI on these old policies was nearly always front loaded and that makes a very good basis for a complaint. If you can also then prove that your employment at the time paid sickness benefits, it would also help to counter the bank offering you comparative redress rather than full refund.
Unfortunately I cannot offer any help/interpretation with the results of your DSAR information. I am expecting my results back shortly and am anticipating being in a similar position if the information is difficult for "laymen" like ourselves to interpret. I would be very interested to know how this part of your complaint plays out if you can continue to keep your thread updated please?
Starman

Will do starman.

Are there any of you on here would be willing to let me send you the paperwork via e-mail..? There aren't very many sheets that have any relative info on it but the ones i have, especially the bits where it says insurance is included, i would appreciate an opinion on..

Please pm me if you can.

Orville

Firstly a big thank you to those who have replied to me via PM.

Secondly a special thank you to addedvaluebob who has advise me that it looks like my ppi was front loaded onto the loan and to claim on that basis and to also include my other information.

I do however have one query. While searching for an address to send my claim to i came across some reports about lloyds using alternative redress to give a payout less then they should.

If they were to make me an offer and it fell under this, how would I know..?

[Deleted User]

Orville wrote: »

If they were to make me an offer and it fell under this, how would I know..?

It would be detailed in their response letter.

Orville

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It would be detailed in their response letter.

Ok Thank you.. :-)

dunstonh

I do however have one query. While searching for an address to send my claim to i came across some reports about lloyds using alternative redress to give a payout less then they should.

The media got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Alternative redress is an FCA approved method which should be used when no wrongdoing is found on the actual sale of the policy but it was set up as single premium instead of monthly premium. If the case was classed as a mis-sale then they cant use this method. if its not classed as a mis-sale they can use this method.

Orville

dunstonh wrote: »

The media got the wrong end of the stick on this one. Alternative redress is an FCA approved method which should be used when no wrongdoing is found on the actual sale of the policy but it was set up as single premium instead of monthly premium. If the case was classed as a mis-sale then they cant use this method. if its not classed as a mis-sale they can use this method.

Can you just clarify something for me. On the claims form it has a secion B5. How did you pay for this insurance.

with a single payment (premium) paid up front as a one off,
with a premium paid each month.

The insurance was included into the loan then interest etc on top giving me a final payment amount and a single monthly payment.


I selected the second one. Is that correct?.

dunstonh

Orville wrote: »

Can you just clarify something for me. On the claims form it has a secion B5. How did you pay for this insurance.

with a single payment (premium) paid up front as a one off,
with a premium paid each month.

The insurance was included into the loan then interest etc on top giving me a final payment amount and a single monthly payment.


I selected the second one. Is that correct?.

Included on the loan and charged interest is single premium. Not monthly premium. monthly premium would be credit card PPI or PPI paid by direct debit standalone from the debt.

Some loans do have monthly premium PPI. These would show no single premium being added to the loan but the monthly payment broken down each and every month to show the PPI cost for that month.