Santander PPI review letter received April2015

dunstonh

That said, I had a similar claim from Marks and Spencer rejected in 2010 and last year , out of the blue , I was told they were reinvestigating it and received a cheque for 17K so stranger things have happened.

Going by responses on the forums, some people get their reopened case review decide the original decision was wrong and some dont.

Insider101

Pipeandslippers20 wrote: »

"It states the FSA's ICOB regulations came into force on 14 January 2005. As set out above, I note that this policy was set up in June 2001. As this was prior to January 2005, the FSA's decision is not relevant, but all complaints alleging that insurance may have been mis-old are taken very seriously."

I am not totally sure, but at a guess I would suggest they mean the court ruling in 2011.

Question – I went into the store in the early days of the cover (after 30 days) to try cancel the policy. I was told I couldn’t, unless I paid off the whole balance first. My word against their. This appears to contradict the above, but it’s my word against theirs. Worth adding in the latest response?

If you like, but as you've said it is basically your word against theirs on this.

Questions – should they have checked on my suitability for this PPI even if their practice was that these sales we “non-advised”?

No. That's exactly what a non-advised sale is. They are not required to establish the suitability of the product in any way, shape or form. That's up to you. All they have to do is tell you what it is and what it does and let you make that decision. Nowadays, they have to ascertain your eligibility (i.e. that you would actually be covered by the product). However, in a pre-regulation sale even that wasn't a regulatory requirement.

When I took out the cover, I was in a part-time, zero hours contract, working about 15-20 hours per week. This was in June, and I was due to revert back to being a full time uni student just 3 months later in September.

I’m open to being corrected here, but are the following therefore reasons for not being eligible or suitable for this PPI?

-You worked less than 16 hours a week when the PPI was sold to you. Part-time workers are not eligible for PPI coverage. The person selling you the policy should have enquired about your employment situation. (though hours varied)
-You were employed on a temporary or contract basis when the PPI was sold to you. Temporary or contract workers are not eligible for PPI coverage. The person selling you the policy should have enquired about your employment situation
-You were aware you may become unemployed when the PPI was sold to you. If you had reason to believe that you were facing an imminent loss of income, then you would have been ineligible for insurance covering this event and should not have been sold PPI.

This just looks like a copy & paste from generic internet guidance. The terms & conditions on all policies vary and without knowing the ones applicable to your policy it's impossible to comment. I suggest you try and obtain a copy.

Generally, you had to have been working a certain number of hours a week on a permanent contract, or permanently self-employed to be cover. But on a pre-regulation sale, they may argue it was your responsibility to check your eligibility and not theirs. Best to mention it anyway and see what they say.

I also feel aggrieved in that the sickness cover wasn’t discussed and the main reason for pushing the PPI was that it safeguarded me from any drop in price with purchases if I then found they were in a sale afterwards. Hardly the point to be pushing, but one that would appeal most to a student perhaps! Open to comments, but please refrain from pointing out how foolish and naive I was, I'm very aware of this 15 years later :-)

This may have been a different type of cover? This is not and never has been what PPI does.