PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

amersall

Jimbob73 wrote: »

Hi, I wonder if anyone can give me advice on which route to go down next. I have had a long drawn out claim with Lloyds Bank over mortgage PPI taken out with Cheltenham & Gloucester that dates back to 1996. Although Lloyds have admitted there was PPI on this loan, because the loan was taken out in joint names, they need to not only speak to myself, but also my then wife. She has now been my ex wife for over 14 years and I have no means of getting in contact with her. Lloyds state that because they are unable to contact her they are unable to proceed with the claim. I continued this claim with the financial ombudsman and they have also responded with the same points. I divorced my wife over 14 years ago. We settled in court with a full and final settlement. Also, why can't they continue the claim and use the same percentage discount they used on the mortgage that they did pay out on which was also in both of our names. It seems they are using an excuse for one so they don't have to pay out and the financial ombudsman is going along with Lloyds argument. Any expert views out there would be welcome. Cheers

Update.....I have just written to the Financial Ombudsman again vie email and informed them that I am not happy with there response and want them to look into it further. I can not understand why, when you have two different loans you are claiming for....(2 mortgages)...the second one they pay out for and retain 10% for my ex wife, should she claim at a later date, and yet they don't pay out on the first one and blame the issue being that they can't contact my ex wife for her side of the story.....?????

Have bumped this up in the hope someone can help.

Jimbob73

Nobody seems to know anything so far....but much appreciated for bumping up post.

budget_barbie

Back in 1995 I had a loan for £2k, i just recalimed my PPI which was missold, and have a nice cheque for £959 !!!

Can't thank Martin and all his moneysavers enough :j:beer::T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T:T

cripcrones

Just successfully reclaimed almost 4300 PPI on an Alliance and Leicester mortgage that I had from 2003 to 2015. I was employed but had other entitlements eg sick pay and redundancy that means PPI would not be any advantage. The key point for others is that A&L used a standard HomeBuyers plan document to show us the mortgage quotation - and this said that thier Mortgage PaymentCover (ie the PPI) was :"strongly recommended":. I also remmeber the sales advisor telling me this.

CRAZY:HORSE_2

Quick question!


My friend had three loans a while back which had ppi paid up front as a premium on all of them. Now she never finished paying off the debt and hasn't had contact for over 6 years!


Question is if she complained about the sale of the premiums on the accounts, could they use some of the redress for settlement of the loan, even if the loan has been Statute Barred or sold on countless times ?

Many thanks

dunstonh

CRAZY:HORSE wrote: »

Quick question!


My friend had three loans a while back which had ppi paid up front as a premium on all of them. Now she never finished paying off the debt and hasn't had contact for over 6 years!


Question is if she complained about the sale of the premiums on the accounts, could they use some of the redress for settlement of the loan, even if the loan has been Statute Barred or sold on countless times ?

Many thanks

Thankfully some logic exists here. If the debt has defaulted (or in arrears or had amounts previously written off) then they can use the refund part of the redress against that debt and not pay it to the borrower.

Statute barring does not mean the debt no longer exists. It just means they cannot use the courts to recover it. They still have the right of set off.

If the debt was sold then they cannot use it against the debt unless the debt can be brought back (which is quite common). Also, the use of third party collection companies does not mean the debt was sold. Most lenders do not carry out their own collections any more. They contract it out. So, just because a third party is doing the chasing, does not mean they now own the debt.

Mummybear1976

I've just received £79.70 back. I had Sentinel Credit Card Protection which, obviously, it appears I didn't need. The payment only goes back as far as 2005 (although I had it for longer but I don't think the legislation applied way back then). Also, it was originally mis-sold to me for yet another reason because, when I tried to make a claim for assistance with repayments when I was made redundant, I was told I didn't qualify to make a claim as I worked part-time + slightly less than the requisite hours per week (which I think was about 18) - although this was not made clear to me when I applied for the card protection. I don't believe this has been taken into account in the redress I have received.
Repayment to me is made up as follows:
Payments made by me in respect of product on or after 14th Jan 2005 = £50.
Total redress before interest = £50
Gross interest at 8% simple per annum = £37.12
Tax deducted on interest at 20%
TOTAL DUE £79.70

Insider101

dunstonh wrote: »

Thankfully some logic exists here. If the debt has defaulted (or in arrears or had amounts previously written off) then they can use the refund part of the redress against that debt and not pay it to the borrower.

Statute barring does not mean the debt no longer exists. It just means they cannot use the courts to recover it. They still have the right of set off.

If the debt was sold then they cannot use it against the debt unless the debt can be brought back (which is quite common). Also, the use of third party collection companies does not mean the debt was sold. Most lenders do not carry out their own collections any more. They contract it out. So, just because a third party is doing the chasing, does not mean they now own the debt.

This is the correct answer.

CRAZY:HORSE_2

Thanks dunstonh !

This is exactly what happened, I talked to my friend about an hour ago and she had received the final resolution letter today.

It basically explained everything in detail about each account and which ones were closed and that the last loan was indeed sold on.

They gave her two options, A. To pay off some of the loan and receive a part payment through a bacs transfer. Or B. To have all the payment protect insurance paid off on what was left to pay on the loan.

I suppose she got lucky in this case!

amersall

Mummybear1976 wrote: »

I've just received £79.70 back. I had Sentinel Credit Card Protection which, obviously, it appears I didn't need. The payment only goes back as far as 2005 (although I had it for longer but I don't think the legislation applied way back then). Also, it was originally mis-sold to me for yet another reason because, when I tried to make a claim for assistance with repayments when I was made redundant, I was told I didn't qualify to make a claim as I worked part-time + slightly less than the requisite hours per week (which I think was about 18) - although this was not made clear to me when I applied for the card protection. I don't believe this has been taken into account in the redress I have received.
Repayment to me is made up as follows:
Payments made by me in respect of product on or after 14th Jan 2005 = £50.
Total redress before interest = £50
Gross interest at 8% simple per annum = £37.12
Tax deducted on interest at 20%
TOTAL DUE £79.70

You only get back PPI you actually paid.
If you have statements going further back than 05 that show PPI you must send copies of these in and ask them to look at your claim again.