MSE News: Clydesdale Bank to review PPI claims after record £20.6m fine 14 April 2015 at 1:02PM in Reclaim PPI & Other Insurance 78 replies 19K views

Former_MSE_Paloma

Clydesdale customers who made a PPI claim before August 2014 will have their claim reviewed, following a £20m fine ...

Read the full story:

Clydesdale Bank to review PPI claims after record £20.6m fine




Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

HAL_9000_2

I have a FOS upheld PPI claim against the Yorkshire/Clydesdale Bank. I recieved a a letter from the FOS dated Feb.17. I had worked out the eight week period was up today as a consequnce I rang the number given in the letter to contact Yorkshire/Clydesdale after the expiry period. Set out below is a summary of the telecon:

- Your case is in the calculation phase and entered our system on March. 4 and that date takes precedent over the FOS dated letter as regards when the 8 week period comes into effect. You have at least two more weeks before the FOS deadline expires.

- "We the Yorkshire/Clydesdale have a significant backlog that our FOS team are dealing with and it is highly likely we will go beyond the 8 weeks". If we over run you will not lose out you will be reconpensed.

- FOS referred cases are far more complicated to deal with and as a consequence take a lot longer.

- The backlog is partly due to because the FOS had a backlog too.

- We have made the FOS aware we are overunning on a significant number of cases, due to their complexity.

- We cannot give you any estimation on when you are likely will recieve an offer.

---

I don't know how much of this to believe, some is undoubtedly true, however, some of the other points appear less credible.

My opinion and expierance is the is Yorkshire/Clydesdale Bank have done everything possible with their powers to drag the process out. Despite in my case and given the paperwork in my possession (and those provided themselves) them in the first place there was always a very strong case of a miss-sell. I'm now well into the 3rd year of my claim and the finishing line is still shrouded in fog still!

If this Guardian article http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/apr/14/fca-fines-clydesdale-bank-record-ppi-complaints is to believed they are due every penny of the fine.

Marty...

LiMax

Im a bit confused regarding todays ruling. Does this only apply to people who appealed to the Financial Ombudsman, or does it appeal to people who were turned down during that period. My claim was rejected by Clydesdale Bank, but I did not appeal at the time even although I did not agree to there decision. The reason being I felt that because the Clydesdale bank were a reputable bank, that I stood no chance as it was my word against theirs in the end. Even although I knew 100% that I had been talked into/scaremongered into taking PPI out all those years ago.

jamesd

It applies to everyone who made a claim. Clydesdale is going to review all of the claims so you don't need to take any action.

If your case was about PPI purchased with a single lump sum payment but that was more than seven years before the claim you'll probably find that Clydesdale now agrees that you were mis-sold.

LiMax

Thank you for your advice jamesd. Our claim was for PPI misold when taking out our mortgage and PPI misold on two personal loans. Neither were lump sum payments, it was added to our loan repayments which were paid monthly and our Mortgage repayment which is paid monthly.

HAL_9000_2

LiMax wrote: »

Im a bit confused regarding todays ruling. Does this only apply to people who appealed to the Financial Ombudsman, or does it appeal to people who were turned down during that period. My claim was rejected by Clydesdale Bank, but I did not appeal at the time even although I did not agree to there decision. The reason being I felt that because the Clydesdale bank were a reputable bank, that I stood no chance as it was my word against theirs in the end. Even although I knew 100% that I had been talked into/scaremongered into taking PPI out all those years ago.

It applies to both. After the Clydesdale rejected your claim you really should have taken your case to FOS. You will now just have wait to they review it, which may take some time.I know from personal expierance they are swamped, just from FOS upheld decsions, never mind the review they have commited to undertake

Marty...

LiMax

At the time I didnt know enough about it, and to be honest I guess I threw in the towel. I had previously written to my branch of the Clydesdale bank asking if we would be entitled to PPI refunds, and never got as much as a reply. My sister and nephew then had success when they claimed PPI refunds for credit cards they had and encouraged me to complete the online claim form. Thats when I eventually got a response, but was told I didnt qualify even although I knew I had been mis-sold. Thanks guys for your response and advice.

magpiecottage

As a rule of thumb, mortgage PPI is normally defensible - particularly if it was a monthly premium. For it to be upheld, you would typically have to show some reason why you would not have been able to make a successful claim if you had lost your income.

Credit card PPI is considered less important as the amounts are smaller and your home is not at risk if your income stops - so the likelihood of a complaint being upheld is higher.

LiMax

But surely it would still have been up to the individual to decide if they wanted to take out PPI on a mortgage? Not talked into it for fear of being turned down for the mortgage, or do I have this wrong was it compulsory ?

magpiecottage

The adviser could not say something which was misleading or untrue. However, they can tell you a disturbing reality.

If you simply assumed the cover was compulsory, that would be your fault. You also have to bear in mind that if you simply say you were told it in the absence of any evidence, then you are likely to find it is rejected.

LiMax

Sorry magpiecottage, I think Ive confused this. We didnt think it was compulsory at the time, but I thought by your comments that it was defensible then maybe it was, sorry. We were put under pressure to take out PPI and made feel we would have a better chance of getting our mortgage/loans if we took it out. Both my husband and myself were never asked if our salarys would continue if we were off on long term sick etc, and they would have done. We may not have a claim, but 100% feel that we were pressurised to take out PPI. Thanks for all your advice and assistance.