Is it common for banks to lie when asking for PPI back?

gman41

HI,
Just wondering if this happened to you?

Over the last 4 years have been trying to get my ppi back from 'Satan'dander
every time they said it was not on the account...:mad:

Then I found quite alot of old bank statements showing I had protection...

Sent it off and got my cash back!:D

dunstonh

Is it common for banks to lie when asking for PPI back?

No. There has been no evidence to suggest any bank has told lies.

every time they said it was not on the account...

The key is that things like PPI are not always easy to find on records. Especially on older records that were paper based or on previous computer systems which may not have had the data transferred to the current systems.

So, it is not uncommon for a bank staff member to initially find no evidence of PPI but later find it when more data comes to late (such as account numbers/reference numbers on payments which can identify the policy etc).

kensiko

You never know, you may get a surprise in the future!

I helped a friend send letters off many years ago which were all rejected. We were not surprised as they were just general punts at the time with no specific details given.

Fast forward two years and completely out of the blue they got a cheque for over £2000 from Barclays apologising while referencing the original letter that was sent and previously rejected.

Never give up hope even on rejections and good luck. :T

gman41

I only had a few months statements. ..but they could track a full 7 years???

xHannahx

Depending how long ago the protection existed they may no longer have records of the insurance. They would therefore send a response stating we have "no record, send us evidence" but in more words

magpiecottage

gman41 wrote: »

Is it common for banks to lie when asking for PPI back?

Nowhere near as common as it is for consumers, and particularly CMCs to lie.

You made the assertion so, the onus was on you to prove. The bank will have searched its records and found no trace. They are not, though, required to go through every document in their possession just in case it might contain evidence that you had PPI, only documents that could be traced by a reasonably competent clerk with no specialist knowledge of their systems, based on the information about yourself that you have given them.

As that produced no evidence they were perfectly entitled to say they had no evidence of such a policy.

When you sent your statements, you gave them such evidence and they reconsidered in the light of that evidence. It is also quite possible that by giving them the statements, they became aware of a policy number that you had not previously told them.

Armed with that new knowledge, they were able trace an old account that was not filed in a way that they could not otherwise find it.

It is not fair to blame Santander for being unable to find an account which you had given insufficient information for them to trace.

gman41

To be fair...i gave them thr same information...the 3rd attempt they did not reply...
Clearly showing on a statement i had ppi...
So i tried a final 4th time...with going to the ombudsman. ..and they paid up!

Just confused why they didn't pay when i first asked?

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

Nowhere near as common as it is for consumers, and particularly CMCs to lie.

You made the assertion so, the onus was on you to prove. The bank will have searched its records and found no trace. They are not, though, required to go through every document in their possession just in case it might contain evidence that you had PPI, only documents that could be traced by a reasonably competent clerk with no specialist knowledge of their systems, based on the information about yourself that you have given them.

As that produced no evidence they were perfectly entitled to say they had no evidence of such a policy.

It is also quite possible that by giving them the statements, they became aware of a policy number that you had not previously told them.

Armed with that new knowledge, they were able trace an old account that was not filed in a way that they could not otherwise find it.

It is not fair to blame Santander for being unable to find an account which you had given insufficient information for them to trace.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

Banks lie on a corporate level, disadvantage millions of consumers and yet this is nowhere near as prevalent as consumers. The evidence for consumers or CMC's lying is where? The fines for the banks because they got caught, are in the press regularly

It is apparently acceptable for a company such as Santander to employ a 'reasonably competent clerk with no specialist knowledge'' Many on whom are temp and contractors on little more than minimum wage and then criticise CMCs for employing the same people

WatchMan

I wouldn't go as far as some have gone and say that no bank has ever lied. There have certainly been some very isolated incidents of very dodgy behaviour.

On a larger scale though, banks and their staff have been mistaken. Things have been overlooked, errors made - that sort of thing.

I have seen cases made where banks have been required to pay additional compensation where they have denied that PPI was on an account, only for the consumer to prove this wrong at a later point.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Banks lie on a corporate level, disadvantage millions of consumers and yet this is nowhere near as prevalent as consumers.

I never said that banks never lie.

Do consumers/CMCs lie? - well lets have a look at some evidence:

In DRN6496626 the Ombudsman says: "Mr and Mrs C’s representatives have said that Mr and Mrs C were not aware that the MPPI was added to the account. However, they also said, at an earlier stage of the complaints process, that Lloyds Bank told them that the MPPI was compulsory if they wanted to get a mortgage." As the Ombudsman observed, "These two versions cannot both be correct".

Or DRN8367322

"I have considered the complaint points raised by Mr G’s representatives on his
PPI questionnaire, but these appear to be generic and, in parts, contradictory. For example, they say that Mr G was “unaware” that the policy had been added to his mortgage. But they also say that he felt pressured and wasn’t aware that the policy was optional. It seems to me that Mr G cannot both be “unaware” that the policy had been added, whilst also saying he had been pressured into taking the policy."

Or DRN3636749

"Ms D has complained that she was told she needed to upgrade her account to be given an overdraft whilst also saying that her accounts were upgraded without her knowledge or agreement. While either one of these statements could be entirely plausible, they cannot both be true at the same time."

Or DRN2824238

"Mr C has argued that neither he nor his wife remember agreeing to take PPI and were 'only made aware [he] had this when [he] looked back on a previous old statement'. Separately, Mr C has also argued that he felt pressured
into taking the policy. It seems to me that Mr C cannot both believe that taking PPI was essential to the success of his application and be unaware that he had taken the policy."

Or DRN3393224

"Having carefully considered Mrs N’s testimony, I have noticed some important
inconsistencies and contradictions. For example, Mrs N has told us that she had no
knowledge of the PPI being added to her account until it appeared on her statements. However, the complaint letter sent by her representatives says that Mrs N took the policy because she was led to believe it would assist her credit card application. The letter also says Mrs N was told that the policy was essential to get the credit and she believed she had no option. It seems to me that Mrs N cannot both have been unaware that the policy had been added to her account and been led to believe that it was essential to get the credit."

Or DRN5656869

"Mr G complained that the policy was added without his knowledge, but later said that he felt pressured into taking out the cover. These situations cannot both be the case"

Or DRN7485421

"I must also briefly comment on Mr B’s alternative complaint that he only purchased PPI because he was worried that his application for a credit card would be declined if he did not. Clearly the PPI cannot both have been added without Mr B’s knowledge and consent and have been purchased to ensure an application was successful."

DRN1107688

"On the PPI questionnaire form, Miss R says that she does 'not recall any conversation about the offer of payment protection insurance' and continues that she 'thought [she] was getting a credit card and nothing more'. As such, Miss R is alleging that the policy was added without her knowledge or consent.
In a response to the adjudicator’s view, Miss R later says that Yorkshire Bank 'strongly suggested during the meeting that she may not have succeeded in her [credit card] application if the PPI was not agreed to'. As such, she is saying she was pressured and coerced into taking a policy she did not want. Clearly, Miss R cannot both have been unaware that the policy had been added to her account, with no recollections of any sales discussion and have taken the policy because
she felt pressured to do so by a pushy advisor."

Or DRN4992034

"I have also thought about one of the main
aspects of Mr A’s complaint, namely that BOS led him to believe that the policy was part of the mortgage deal and so he did not realise he could decline it. These representations have come through Mr A’s representatives, who have also stated that the policy was added 'without knowledge or discussion'. It seems to me that these two assertions contradict one another, and cannot both be the case. Either the policy was added without Mr A’s knowledge, or he took it because he believed it was compulsory."

Or DRN1570216

"In their original direct testimony, Mr J and Mrs K told us that they were not aware that they had taken out the MPPI policy. Their most recent submissions to this service discuss at length how they were explicitly told by the Nationwide representative that the MPPI was compulsory, that '…it was a condition of the mortgage.' Nationwide has denied that. It seems to me that these two points cannot both be the case"

Or DRN6022608

"Mr T has told us that it was not clear to him that he had the choice not to take out PPI, saying that he thought his credit score would increase if he took the insurance. These statements cannot both be correct however."

Or DRN8013381

"I have also thought about one of the main aspects of Mr and Mrs M’s complaint, namely that Halifax led them to believe that the policy was part of the mortgage deal and so they did not realise they could decline it without jeopardising the mortgage. They have also told us that they did not realise they had the
policy, which strongly suggests they believe that it was added without their consent. It seems to me that these two positions don’t sit comfortably with one another, and cannot both be the case"

Or DRN8147083

"Mrs N has complained that she was not aware that the policy had been added; however, she also said that she was advised to take out the cover. These points cannot both be the case, but nonetheless I will address them below."

Or DRN8209222

"I have first of all thought about one of the key aspects of Mr and Mrs M’s complaint – namely that they did not know they had this MPPI policy. It appears that this sales process began on the telephone during a conversation, and that First Direct then sent the necessary paperwork to Mr and Mrs M for consideration and signature. Mr and Mrs M have also mentioned that they felt pressured into taking the policy out, although they have not explained how that happened, or what the First Direct advisor said to make them feel that way. I also don’t think that these two assertions sit comfortably together: either Mr and Mrs M did not know MPPI was being applied to their account, or they felt pressured into agreeing to it. These two positions cannot both be the case."

Or DRN5184256

"Mr R has complained that he was not aware that the policy had been added; however, he also said that he was advised to take out the cover. These points cannot both be the case"

Or DRN9968904

"I have firstly thought about one of the main aspects of Mr and Mrs M’s complaint, namely that Halifax led them to believe that the policy was necessary and so they did not realise they could decline it without jeopardising the mortgage. They have also told us that they did not realise they had the policy, which strongly suggests they believe that it was added without their consent. It seems to me that these two positions don’t sit comfortably with one another, and cannot both be the case."

Or DRN8193362

"Mrs F told us, through her representative, that she was advised by Halifax she had to have the policy to be granted the mortgage. She also told us, through her representative, that she does not recall any conversation about the PPI and did not select it. These perspectives are conflicting – Mrs F cannot both be unaware she has the policy and yet feel she had to take it out."

Or DRN8972257

"Mr E initially complained that he was unaware of the PPI, but later said that he was pressured into taking out the PPI cover and that it was presented as being compulsory. These cannot both be the case"

Or DRN4193794

"Mrs R has stated (through her representatives) that she was 'given the impression by [Barclaycard] that the loan would not be approved unless the Payment Protection Policy was taken' and that she 'did not realise at the time the account was opened that PPI was included'. It seems to me that these cannot both be correct"


Or DRN8172943

"Mr C has told us that the MPPI was presented as a necessary part of the mortgage deal, and also that it was added to his account without his knowledge, and therefore consent. It seems to me that these two positions contradict one another, and cannot both be the case."

Or DRN4813785

"Mr F has told us that he has no recollection of the policy being sold to him and that he had been paying for it without his knowledge. Mr F has also told us that the policy was sold to him on the pretext that he had to have it .... what he has told us is contradictory. He cannot both have been unaware of his purchase and made to feel he had no choice in the matter and had to take it out."

These are just cases where the complainant/ambulance chaser tripped themselves up with their lies.

Nevertheless, each is an inconvenient truth for any apologist for CMCs and scattergun complaints.

Among my clients, none of the PPI complaints I have received has ever been true.
Once or twice, these so called "experts" have quoted a policy number and when I checked I found it was a life policy from a company that was never licenced to offer PPI.

The others have all alleged that PPI was missold but not quoted any policy number - presumably because it never existed.

Such would not appear in Ombudsman decisions becase they would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious.

The fines for the banks because they got caught, are in the press regularly

What this tells us is that the banks are properly regulated.

And it is by no means all banks (or other financial services companies). If we follow your logic, all drivers must be guilty of drink driving because some are caught.

There is also no practicable means of punishing a CMC or consumer who makes a fraudulent complaint so they can do so with virtual impunity.

It is apparently acceptable for a company such as Santander to employ a 'reasonably competent clerk with no specialist knowledge''

I quote from the Information Commissioner's Office frequently asked questions and answers about relevant filing systems:

"Yes, you can apply the “temp test”. If you employed a temporary
administrative assistant (a ‘temp’), would they be able to extract
specific information about an individual from your manual
records without any particular knowledge of your type of work or
the documents you hold?
The ‘temp test’ assumes that the temp in question is reasonably
competent, requiring only a short induction, explanation and/or
operating manual on the particular filing system in question for
them to be able to use it."

Again I make an assertion supported by authoritative evidence.

Many on whom are temp and contractors on little more than minimum wage and then criticise CMCs for employing the same people

Clearly you do not know how much banks pay contractors. The minimum wage is £6.50 per hour.

Complaint handling roles, according to an e-mail I received yesterday, are around £170 for a 7½ hour day. That is just over £22 an hour. Allow, say, 20% of that as overheads and you still get to about £18 an hour. I would not call a figure more than 2½ times the minimum wage as "little more than" it.

The requirements for the role are:

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]"[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]a minimum of 12 months regulated complaint handling experience, a strong customer services background, excellent analytical/systems ability and good communication skills, both written and verbal.

Experience of investigating and resolving complaints using relevant procedures and decision trees is essential.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]"

Presumably that requirement is why they are paying so much more than CMCs - who would then seem to be left to pick up those the lenders reject.

xHannahx

magpiecottage wrote: »

I never said that banks never lie. Obviously I cannot tell give you specific details about individuals. However, in DRN6496626 - not involving one of my firm's clients - the Ombudsman says: "Mr and Mrs C’s representatives have said that Mr and Mrs C were not aware that the MPPI was added to the account. However, they also said, at an earlier stage of the complaints process, that Lloyds Bank told them that the MPPI was
compulsory if they wanted to get a mortgage." As the Ombudsman observed, "These two versions cannot both be correct".

Their lies get better than this. I've seen several CMC claims their client didn't know they had the about the policy, yet the clients had made claims against the policy.