We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PPI Reclaiming successes and failures
Comments
-
PPI query sent to Barclays a few weeks back, confirmed PPI on a loan back in 2002. Sent questionnaire back 2 weeks ago.
Wasn't expecting much, cheque received today over £1600!0 -
ANGRY_AT_RBS wrote: »Phone call today confirmed they had only got records back to august 2001 so had only calculated from that date
What else do you expect if you can't prove you paid it during the other period? Good job on the win but the bank can't magic up recordsSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
My ex bank has refused my submission for PPI saying I knew what I was signing up for and they believe they did not mis-sell.
Not sure what to do now. Do I persue or accept?0 -
My ex bank has refused my submission for PPI saying I knew what I was signing up for and they believe they did not mis-sell.
Not sure what to do now. Do I persue or accept?
You have 6 months to refer to FOS if you do not agree, the letter should make that clear.
Unless you put in your complaint reasons and evidence no-one can assist more than that.
Bank may auto-pay if the value is quote low if you refer (it's a sort of blackmail as the firm has to pay a large fee (something like £950) per case so they will sometimes settle before they have to pay the fee). They may fight it if the value is high.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thanks for that. It's only a 3 year period so not thousands of pounds. I'll refer it to FOS...
Just wondering if anyone else has been refused with the reason given as (paraphrasing) "You knew what you were signing up for and we do not believe you were mis-sold."0 -
Thanks for that. It's only a 3 year period so not thousands of pounds. I'll refer it to FOS...
Just wondering if anyone else has been refused with the reason given as (paraphrasing) "You knew what you were signing up for and we do not believe you were mis-sold."
Fairly standard answer if it was not an advised case - they would have shown you the Ts & Cs and other bits before you signed, your signing shows you accepted the charges hence them dismissing it when you complained. They may auto-pay if it is a low figure (PPI typically 70p per £100 of balance on a credit card)Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I offered them the statements I had which I explained went back to when they sold the PPI and they refused also the ombudsman recommendation isWhat else do you expect if you can't prove you paid it during the other period? Good job on the win but the bank can't magic up records
where the financial business has incomplete records of the consumer’s credit card account
Creating a hypothetical reconstruction of a credit card account requires detailed records of the consumer’s account. Sometimes, however, a business’s records might be incomplete and might not stretch back to when the consumer took out the PPI. This can cause problems when it comes to calculating compensation because the business cannot accurately assess the consumer’s loss without knowing their credit card balance each month, the amount they paid to the credit card each month and the cost of PPI.
Where a business’s records of the consumer’s account do not go back to the start of the PPI, we do not usually think it is fair for the business to only compensate the consumer as far back as its records go.
Instead we would usually tell the business to take reasonable steps to get that information and to work out the approximate amount of the consumer’s loss. This includes:- asking the consumer if they have any records of their account (perhaps credit card statements) that would help the business calculate the consumer’s loss;
- if there is still a gap in the records, taking what is known about the consumer’s credit card account – and their behaviour during the period for which it does have records – and making reasonable assumptions based on that information about what would have happened to the consumer’s credit card account for the period it does not have records.
- the consumer’s actual spending and payments over some or all of the period for which it does have records;
- how its customers generally operated their accounts over the period for which it does not have records;
- the average credit limit of its customers over the period in question;
- its knowledge of how its customers generally behave.
A business should also be prepared to consider – and change where necessary – its calculation when a consumer gives evidence that they acted differently than the business’s assumptions suggest.
Based on examples of good practice we have seen, the example below shows how a business might set out how it has calculated compensation for a mis-sold regular-premium PPI policy added to a consumer’s credit card when it does not have records going back to the start of the PPI policy
They have failed to do this0 -
If you have statements going further back than they have given redress for, send copies to them and ask them to recalculate.I offered them the statements I had which I explained went back to when they sold the PPI and they refused0 -
If you have statements going further back than they have given redress for, send copies to them and ask them to recalculate.
Yes going to, but that means yet another delay to them actully paying out, taken three years so far,
So annoyed they wouldnt tell me when i asked how far their records went back and refusing the statements when I offered them
so moral to everyone keep going0 -
ANGRY_AT_RBS wrote: »Yes going to, but that means yet another delay to them actully paying out, taken three years so far,
So annoyed they wouldnt tell me when i asked how far their records went back and refusing the statements when I offered them
so moral to everyone keep going
Yes as Amersall said, if you can prove you paid it for longer then send them the records - did you not make it clear from the off that you had this proof? At the least you will get more interest due to the delay
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards