PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

amersall

Yasminakash wrote: »

Am happy to report that i complained to Barclays as i have taken out a personal loan with them, they added the PPI, the loan is still matured yet, i have complained abt the PPI, within a month, they replied saying though they are not admitting liability, as a gesture of goodwill, they are happy to refund me the full amount of the PPI paid over the loan,,,happy ending,,thanks to those who advised me on this website! Thanks Martin!

:j:j Well done and congrats :beer::beer:
Post you bos cc trouble on here x

di3004

Yasminakash wrote: »

Am happy to report that i complained to Barclays as i have taken out a personal loan with them, they added the PPI, the loan is still matured yet, i have complained abt the PPI, within a month, they replied saying though they are not admitting liability, as a gesture of goodwill, they are happy to refund me the full amount of the PPI paid over the loan,,,happy ending,,thanks to those who advised me on this website! Thanks Martin!

Wonderful, well done and Congratulations!:T:beer::j

halphy

Loads of great news!! Nice to see A&L paying it back!

mollymoo96

Hi Again nice to see so many wins I have been chacing a clain for a long time now that was originally with hfs and endeavor plc who became capital one home owners I had no luck so I sent it o fos and they are now saying I should be claiming from hamilton assurance company limited I assume this is the underwriter does this sound familliar to anyone out there?

I have another claim thatis with the fos I had a call from them at the beginning of july and answered questions fot them a few days later on the phone they said taht they had upheld my complaint I was really pleased but I have heard nothing since I have wrung the adudicator a couple of times but the say they are still negotiating is this normal practice . Any advice would be great

catharsis

amersall wrote: »

Take a look at this people, this makes my blood boil when people answer in this tone, no wonder it puts people off from posting. This poster has only signed up today!! this could put them off claiming.

Hi Amersall (and Di)
I have to agree with you - this is incredibly unhelpful. Have to say and I know many will agree with me that without the confidence of knowing there would be good news or at least feedback and advice on this site then I would have got nowhere near the results that I am achieving (interesting that when you pay attention to the amount you are paying out you get angry as well - I called Barclaycard yesterday and they agreed to freeze my payments and interest).

The NEW FSA Policy 10/12 from August 2010 which was launched last week and the accompanying guidance (which you can download now from the FSA website - essential reading for any followers of this Thread, sorry I am too new to post links) , provides new and much more stringent policies for lenders.

I have already used this with success to get ALL late payment fees and interest repaid by Barclaycard and using the same argument through the CEO of LTSB and expect success (they have already admitted liability on most loans).

These criteria from the FSA are very important to consider, and so in that post where some helpful idiot says "you need it in writing", frankly b******s.
FSA 10/12, FSA 10/36 PPI Complaints Resolution Instrument, sections 3.3.5 to 3.3.13
3.3.5 G The firm should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
3.3.6 G The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.
3.3.7 G The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.
3.3.8 G The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.
3.3.9 G In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).
3.3.10 G The firm should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact give advice in a particular sale. The firm should consider the available evidence and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly or implicitly) to the complainant.
3.3.11 G The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant’s information needs.
3.3.12 G In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant’s information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:
(1) the complainant’s individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firm should take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant’s objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable customer’s perspective, the documentation provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient information was communicated during the sale discussion for the customer to make an informed decision (for example, did the firm give an oral explanation of the main characteristics of the policy or specifically draw the complainant’s attention to that information on a computer screen or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the firm in response to questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
3.3.13 G The firm should not reject a complaint solely because the complainant had held a payment protection contract previously.
ASSOCIATED DEBT
In addition, there is now provision for the return of all late payment fees, excess charges, overdraft interest and charges linked to PPI mis-selling or which "flows from it". I am using this argument and hope it works. It did with Barclays, they refunded £350 worth of late payment fees over 21 years and £300 interest this week. if you loans and overdrafts etc are linked through the same bank acount then use this provision. I am also demanding that all negative credit records are annulled, again with success using this clause: -
"3.9.2 In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm’s breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract’s cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penalty interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender."
Policy 10/12 states clearly that over the next few months the FSA will become more stringent in its penalties, described in Section 4, Monitoring, paras 4.3 to 4.8 summarized thus: -
“In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.” FSA Policy 10/12, Section 4.8
Maybe a new sticky is needed? The lenders from december MUST contact people who are not aware they have been mis-sold PPI. I think many of the lenders are completely unprepared for this, we will see many more massive fines as a result.
Thanks for your support, Amersall and Di, I would not be where I am today and would still be paying off the £48K debt I had in ten years time probably if I had not taken the action and followed this site and your guidance, obviously under Martin's stewardship . By November I will be debt free, maybe with a lump sum too.
Cheers

amersall

catharsis wrote: »

Hi Amersall (and Di)
I have to agree with you - this is incredibly unhelpful. Have to say and I know many will agree with me that without the confidence of knowing there would be good news or at least feedback and advice on this site then I would have got nowhere near the results that I am achieving (interesting that when you pay attention to the amount you are paying out you get angry as well - I called Barclaycard yesterday and they agreed to freeze my payments and interest).

The NEW FSA Policy 10/12 from August 2010 which was launched last week and the accompanying guidance (which you can download now from the FSA website - essential reading for any followers of this Thread, sorry I am too new to post links) , provides new and much more stringent policies for lenders.

I have already used this with success to get ALL late payment fees and interest repaid by Barclaycard and using the same argument through the CEO of LTSB and expect success (they have already admitted liability on most loans).

These criteria from the FSA are very important to consider, and so in that post where some helpful idiot says "you need it in writing", frankly b******s.
FSA 10/12, FSA 10/36 PPI Complaints Resolution Instrument, sections 3.3.5 to 3.3.13
3.3.5 G The firm should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
3.3.6 G The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.
3.3.7 G The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.
3.3.8 G The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.
3.3.9 G In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).
3.3.10 G The firm should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact give advice in a particular sale. The firm should consider the available evidence and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly or implicitly) to the complainant.
3.3.11 G The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant’s information needs.
3.3.12 G In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant’s information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:
(1) the complainant’s individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firm should take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant’s objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable customer’s perspective, the documentation provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient information was communicated during the sale discussion for the customer to make an informed decision (for example, did the firm give an oral explanation of the main characteristics of the policy or specifically draw the complainant’s attention to that information on a computer screen or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the firm in response to questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
3.3.13 G The firm should not reject a complaint solely because the complainant had held a payment protection contract previously.
ASSOCIATED DEBT
In addition, there is now provision for the return of all late payment fees, excess charges, overdraft interest and charges linked to PPI mis-selling or which "flows from it". I am using this argument and hope it works. It did with Barclays, they refunded £350 worth of late payment fees over 21 years and £300 interest this week. if you loans and overdrafts etc are linked through the same bank acount then use this provision. I am also demanding that all negative credit records are annulled, again with success using this clause: -
"3.9.2 In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm’s breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract’s cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penalty interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender."
Policy 10/12 states clearly that over the next few months the FSA will become more stringent in its penalties, described in Section 4, Monitoring, paras 4.3 to 4.8 summarized thus: -
“In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.” FSA Policy 10/12, Section 4.8
Maybe a new sticky is needed? The lenders from december MUST contact people who are not aware they have been mis-sold PPI. I think many of the lenders are completely unprepared for this, we will see many more massive fines as a result.
Thanks for your support, Amersall and Di, I would not be where I am today and would still be paying off the £48K debt I had in ten years time probably if I had not taken the action and followed this site and your guidance, obviously under Martin's stewardship . By November I will be debt free, maybe with a lump sum too.
Cheers

Hi there, thanks for this, this is very helpfull. I always say to give it a go and if you are knocked back by the banks dont give in.
Well done on your win and glad to have been able to set you down the right path :j:j

di3004

catharsis wrote: »

Hi Amersall (and Di)
I have to agree with you - this is incredibly unhelpful. Have to say and I know many will agree with me that without the confidence of knowing there would be good news or at least feedback and advice on this site then I would have got nowhere near the results that I am achieving (interesting that when you pay attention to the amount you are paying out you get angry as well - I called Barclaycard yesterday and they agreed to freeze my payments and interest).

The NEW FSA Policy 10/12 from August 2010 which was launched last week and the accompanying guidance (which you can download now from the FSA website - essential reading for any followers of this Thread, sorry I am too new to post links) , provides new and much more stringent policies for lenders.

I have already used this with success to get ALL late payment fees and interest repaid by Barclaycard and using the same argument through the CEO of LTSB and expect success (they have already admitted liability on most loans).

These criteria from the FSA are very important to consider, and so in that post where some helpful idiot says "you need it in writing", frankly b******s.
FSA 10/12, FSA 10/36 PPI Complaints Resolution Instrument, sections 3.3.5 to 3.3.13
3.3.5 G The firm should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
3.3.6 G The firm should not reject a complaint because the complainant failed to exercise the right to cancel the policy.
3.3.7 G The firm should not consider that a successful claim by the complainant is, in itself, sufficient evidence that the complainant had a need for the policy or had understood its terms or would have bought it regardless of any breach or failing by the firm.
3.3.8 G The firm should not draw a negative inference from a complainant not having kept documentation relating to the purchase of the policy for any particular period of time.
3.3.9 G In determining a particular complaint, the firm should (unless there are reasons not to because of the quality and plausibility of the respective evidence) give more weight to any specific evidence of what happened during the sale (including any relevant documentation and oral testimony) than to general evidence of selling practices at the time (such as training, instructions or sales scripts or relevant audit or compliance reports on those practices).
3.3.10 G The firm should not assume that because it was not authorised to give advice (or because it intended to sell without making a recommendation) it did not in fact give advice in a particular sale. The firm should consider the available evidence and assess whether or not it gave advice or made a recommendation (explicitly or implicitly) to the complainant.
3.3.11 G The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant’s information needs.
3.3.12 G In considering the information communicated to the complainant and the complainant’s information needs, the evidence to which a firm should have regard includes:
(1) the complainant’s individual circumstances at the time of the sale (for example, the firm should take into account any evidence of limited financial capability or understanding on the part of the complainant);
(2) the complainant’s objectives and intentions at the time of the sale;
(3) whether, from a reasonable customer’s perspective, the documentation provided to the complainant was sufficiently clear, concise and presented fairly (for example, was the documentation in plain and intelligible language?);
(4) in a sale that was primarily conducted orally, whether sufficient information was communicated during the sale discussion for the customer to make an informed decision (for example, did the firm give an oral explanation of the main characteristics of the policy or specifically draw the complainant’s attention to that information on a computer screen or in a document and give the complainant time to read and consider it?);
(5) any evidence about the tone and pace of oral communication (for example, was documentation read out too quickly for the complainant to have understood it?); and
(6) any extra explanation or information given by the firm in response to questions raised (or information disclosed) by the complainant.
3.3.13 G The firm should not reject a complaint solely because the complainant had held a payment protection contract previously.
ASSOCIATED DEBT
In addition, there is now provision for the return of all late payment fees, excess charges, overdraft interest and charges linked to PPI mis-selling or which "flows from it". I am using this argument and hope it works. It did with Barclays, they refunded £350 worth of late payment fees over 21 years and £300 interest this week. if you loans and overdrafts etc are linked through the same bank acount then use this provision. I am also demanding that all negative credit records are annulled, again with success using this clause: -
"3.9.2 In assessing redress, the firm should consider whether there are any other further losses that flow from its breach or failing that were reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the firm’s breach or failing, for example, where the payment protection contract’s cost or rejected claims contributed to affordability issues for the associated loan or credit which led to arrears charges, default interest, penalty interest rates or other penalties levied by the lender."
Policy 10/12 states clearly that over the next few months the FSA will become more stringent in its penalties, described in Section 4, Monitoring, paras 4.3 to 4.8 summarized thus: -
“In all these areas, where we find a firm cannot demonstrate it is delivering fair outcomes, it can expect tough action from us, including potential referral for further investigation and potentially enforcement action where appropriate, and steps to ensure it revisits all complaints and/or sales that it has failed to assess and address fairly.” FSA Policy 10/12, Section 4.8
Maybe a new sticky is needed? The lenders from december MUST contact people who are not aware they have been mis-sold PPI. I think many of the lenders are completely unprepared for this, we will see many more massive fines as a result.
Thanks for your support, Amersall and Di, I would not be where I am today and would still be paying off the £48K debt I had in ten years time probably if I had not taken the action and followed this site and your guidance, obviously under Martin's stewardship . By November I will be debt free, maybe with a lump sum too.
Cheers

Hi, well done to you too :T:beer::j, thanks for posting this up.

And your very very welcome.:AX

AOA67

Dear All I have been reading with keen interest all the experiences on this and other MSE forums connected with the mis-selling of PPI. My story is typical of many people who banked with Lloyds TSB. Over the past 15 years I have taken out 6 loans with Lloyds TSB with PPI each consolidating the predecessor. I believed I was miss-sold as I was either a full time PhD student or was employed on fixed term contracts in academia.
Date Cash Loan PPI Term Loan inst PPI Inst APR Payments Date Settled Rebate
Dec 1995 2000 202.42 18 202.42 12.86 18.8% 4 April 1996 No
April 1996 5000 509.82 24 240.16 24.49 14.9% 15 July 1997 No
July 1997 3800 681.87 60 78.22 14.24 8.9% 13 August 1998 No
August 1998 5500 1034.62 60 115.46 21.72 9.9% 33 May 2001 No
May 2001 11670 3137.70 60 247.72 66.61 10.4% 18 Nov 2002 Yes 1405.97
Nov 2002 20000 4332.91 60 429.18 92.99 10.9% 23 ongoing passed in Credit Management Dept in Aug 2010
from Nov 2004 - date have made reduced payments of £200 x 59 months

The last loan went arrears when my contract ended in July 2004 and I was unemployed for 15 months. That was when I was told that I didn't qualify for cover as I was on a fixed term contract. However as I had an overdraft, credit cards with Lloyds I didn't feel secure enough to complain. This has continued over the last 6 years. Armed with the information on this site I finally sent letters and questionnaires for each of the loans to complain to Lloyds TSB on 21st July 2010. Luckily on 10th August I received a reply from Lloyds and all my complaints were upheld. I mistakenly signed all the acceptance forms without reading them closely. I had three different letters to cover all the loans, one to cover the existing loan as it was in arrears, another for the loan from 2001 where I had a rebate of 1405.97 and one for the 4 earlier loans (1995-2001). Two of the letters concerning the last two loans state that the calculations will be settled with the standard redress remedy recommended by the Financial Ombudsman Service, including simple interest of 8%. However for the earlier loans the letter stated that " The refund will be calculated based on the information provided within your Consumer Credit Agreement which outlines the insurance premiums paid including interest. I've only just noticed the difference in the proposed rebate calculations. I thought the reason for the different letters was due to the different circumstances of the loans.
I believe that the simple interest 8% is NOT being paid for these earlier loans. Is this correct and how much do you think I will be losing in rebate without it? Can I, even after signing the acceptance forms, reject the resulting offers if the simple 8% interest is not included. Can I ask for it retrospectively? Would value your advise. Finally I think that this site is unbelievably informative and invaluable, much credit should be given to Martin Lewis and the major MSE contributors. I have been singing MSE praises to all my friends and family.

di3004

AOA67 wrote: »

Dear All I have been reading with keen interest all the experiences on this and other MSE forums connected with the mis-selling of PPI. My story is typical of many people who banked with Lloyds TSB. Over the past 15 years I have taken out 6 loans with Lloyds TSB with PPI each consolidating the predecessor. I believed I was miss-sold as I was either a full time PhD student or was employed on fixed term contracts in academia.
Date Cash Loan PPI Term Loan inst PPI Inst APR Payments Date Settled Rebate
Dec 1995 2000 202.42 18 202.42 12.86 18.8% 4 April 1996 No
April 1996 5000 509.82 24 240.16 24.49 14.9% 15 July 1997 No
July 1997 3800 681.87 60 78.22 14.24 8.9% 13 August 1998 No
August 1998 5500 1034.62 60 115.46 21.72 9.9% 33 May 2001 No
May 2001 11670 3137.70 60 247.72 66.61 10.4% 18 Nov 2002 Yes 1405.97
Nov 2002 20000 4332.91 60 429.18 92.99 10.9% 23 ongoing passed in Credit Management Dept in Aug 2010
from Nov 2004 - date have made reduced payments of £200 x 59 months

The last loan went arrears when my contract ended in July 2004 and I was unemployed for 15 months. That was when I was told that I didn't qualify for cover as I was on a fixed term contract. However as I had an overdraft, credit cards with Lloyds I didn't feel secure enough to complain. This has continued over the last 6 years. Armed with the information on this site I finally sent letters and questionnaires for each of the loans to complain to Lloyds TSB on 21st July 2010. Luckily on 10th August I received a reply from Lloyds and all my complaints were upheld. I mistakenly signed all the acceptance forms without reading them closely. I had three different letters to cover all the loans, one to cover the existing loan as it was in arrears, another for the loan from 2001 where I had a rebate of 1405.97 and one for the 4 earlier loans (1995-2001). Two of the letters concerning the last two loans state that the calculations will be settled with the standard redress remedy recommended by the Financial Ombudsman Service, including simple interest of 8%. However for the earlier loans the letter stated that " The refund will be calculated based on the information provided within your Consumer Credit Agreement which outlines the insurance premiums paid including interest. I've only just noticed the difference in the proposed rebate calculations. I thought the reason for the different letters was due to the different circumstances of the loans.
I believe that the simple interest 8% is NOT being paid for these earlier loans. Is this correct and how much do you think I will be losing in rebate without it? Can I, even after signing the acceptance forms, reject the resulting offers if the simple 8% interest is not included. Can I ask for it retrospectively? Would value your advise. Finally I think that this site is unbelievably informative and invaluable, much credit should be given to Martin Lewis and the major MSE contributors. I have been singing MSE praises to all my friends and family.

Hi there

First of all well done to you.:beer:

I would double check on this with LLoyds.....
[EMAIL="customer.care.insurance@lloydstsb.co.uk"]customer.care.insurance@lloydstsb.co.uk[/EMAIL]

I would ask the above to check with the refunds team.

It all the letters state they have calculated inline with the FOS, then I believe that 8% should be awarded.

AOA67

Thanks di3004 its great to hear from you after reading all your pearls of wisdom to everyone else. I have used that email on 13 August to ask for a replacement acceptance letter (2001 loan) which was missing and I haven't heard anything back. Is there a time limit to accepting the offer and is the simple 8% interest applied up to the date on the form.

Also on another point, Loan 4 has two different account numbers. This was because I transferred my account from old branch (Sheffield) to my current branch in London and was assigned a new loan number. However I was sent an acceptance form for each number with the form for the 'London number' saying no PPI. Hopefully they should treat both loan numbers as on and the same loan and apply the rebate of PPI accordingly but looking at the tactics Lloyds TSB and others employ I'm going to be quite vigilant.