PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

dewdropsandsunshine

Nasqueron wrote: »

Lot depends on whether they have any records left, whether they agree it was miss-sold and so on. If the policy didn't cover under 18s and/or you were not in full time work when it was taken out they may well pay up.

Is the account still active?
Did you pay off the balance in full every month or not?

Thanks for your reply.

Surely they'd have some kind of record?

Yeah I was under 18, in full time education and had a weekend job.

My account with the bank is still active.

I believe it was payable yearly, which I paid.

Smartsaver7

I have had about 6k in total back from :-

HSBC
Santander
Barclay Bank

I used a PPI company Belmont Thornton and Brunel Franklin who did loads of speculative searches , if I had the time would have done it myself , but happy to get that amount back.

Leigh.elec

I didn't relies what it was , stupid on my part , yes I agree , but I did not Know what it was or as I said I would have made a claim when I was made redundent , why else would I not have claimed ?

[Deleted User]

dewdropsandsunshine wrote: »

I believe it was payable yearly, which I paid.

PPI isn't payable yearly. Sounds like a card protection policy.

[Deleted User]

Leigh.elec wrote: »

as I said I would have made a claim when I was made redundent , why else would I not have claimed ?

If the reason you didn't know you had it was simply because you forgot about the policy (which is likely), then it was not mis-sold.
It's a myth sponsored by Claim Companies that PPI was added without the knowledge and permission of the customer. Obviously, the Ombudsman was not persuaded otherwise and it doesn't sound as if you were redundant long enough to be able to receive a payout from any claim on the insurance.

Sorry.

WatchMan

Deleted_User wrote: »

PPI isn't payable yearly. Sounds like a card protection policy.

There are PPI policies out there which were paid for annually. Very rare and I've only seen two - pretty sure it was a credit union which sold them.

Mersey_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's a myth sponsored by Claim Companies that PPI was added without the knowledge and permission of the customer.

Although the minority of cases, this did happen.


So it's equally untrue - as claiming the practice was widespread - to claim it did not go on.

[Deleted User]

Mersey wrote: »

Although the minority of cases, this did happen.

If it did happen (and I've seen no real evidence to support your hypothesis) it was in a tiny minority of cases.
Anyone complaining about this alone is therefore very likely to be rejected, just as the poster I responded to was (by both the Bank and the Ombudsman).

Claim companies try to give the impression it was a widespread occurrence. It wasn't.

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

Although the minority of cases, this did happen.


So it's equally untrue - as claiming the practice was widespread - to claim it did not go on.

There were almost certainly a few dodgy types, like in your case, where someone ticked the box after the signing, however, while wrong, it does rely on you ignoring the fact the PPI charge was listed on every single statement for every single month you had a balance, or never challenging it

Nasqueron

dewdropsandsunshine wrote: »

Thanks for your reply.

Surely they'd have some kind of record?

Yeah I was under 18, in full time education and had a weekend job.

My account with the bank is still active.

I believe it was payable yearly, which I paid.

Bank record keeping is subject to the Data Protection rules so if the account was closed, it may have been deleted or shoved off into some archive, if the account is current then they should have your records.

However, PPI on mainstream cards was monthly, charged on how much of a balance you had that month. If you are talking about a yearly charge it sounds more like CPP or similar, not PPI