We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PPI Reclaiming successes and failures
Comments
-
Smartsaver7 wrote: »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.
If you don't have time to spend 5 minutes writing letters and posting them, how did you have time to speak to the firm, sign the letter of authority and provide them with details.
You have paid them £2k+ to post letters for you. I wish I had that much money to throw away.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 -
Leigh.elec wrote: »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 ?
Forgot the policy? Didn't ask what you were paying for? Who knows, we can't read your mind
If the FOS agreed with the bank it was not miss-sold you could still ask an Ombudsman to review the decision if inside 6 months, but make sure you present your case properly about the attempt to claim on the policy being rejected (though don't forget the policy has to cover the situation when you were sold the policy, not how you were at the time of the event you wanted to claim for).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 -
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »As I said earlier, "Leigh.elec" was not redundant for long enough to claim on the insurance. He had another job two months later. This is not a valid mis-selling complaint reason.
Didn't see that, fair enough. Reading the posts was difficult enough!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 have been trying to reclaim PPI back from HSBC and Beneficial Finance. I had an IVA between 2005 and 2010. I repaid the agreed amount and never missed a payment. I have received my completion certificate in 2012 (after a long process) and have been removed from the insolvency register in 2012. There is no record of the IVA on my credit file.
My claims have been ongoing since 2014. Both banks have said there is missold PPI but have requested a letter of 'No Interest' from my insolvency practioner, when I have spoke to the practitioner they have said they will not give me such a letter and have instead issued me with a letter of 'Interest'. Which I assume means I can't pursue my claim any further as they want the money and the bank will send it to them. I no longer have my IVA T&Cs to see if what they are saying is correct. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.0 -
I have been trying to reclaim PPI back from HSBC and Beneficial Finance. I had an IVA between 2005 and 2010. I repaid the agreed amount and never missed a payment. I have received my completion certificate in 2012 (after a long process) and have been removed from the insolvency register in 2012. There is no record of the IVA on my credit file.
My claims have been ongoing since 2014. Both banks have said there is missold PPI but have requested a letter of 'No Interest' from my insolvency practioner, when I have spoke to the practitioner they have said they will not give me such a letter and have instead issued me with a letter of 'Interest'. Which I assume means I can't pursue my claim any further as they want the money and the bank will send it to them. I no longer have my IVA T&Cs to see if what they are saying is correct. Any advise would be greatly appreciated.
Was any money written off as part of the IVA?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 -
Yes, not sure on the exact amount0
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »If it did happen (and I've seen no real evidence to support your hypothesis) it was in a tiny minority of cases.
There've been countless examples on here and published elsewhere.
To refuse to acknowledge this fact is just bonkers.
Yes, it was a minority of cases and not widespread, as I said.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
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
Again, yes this is probably true in 98% of cases.
But, of course, there were also some examples of both PPI & monthly packaged account fees not being detailed on statements. As RBS have admitted in writing re Style Card & Natwest respectively as just two examples.Please be polite to OPs and remember this is a site for Claimants and Appellants to seek redress against their bank, ex-boss or retailer. If they wanted morality or the view of the IoD or Bank they'd ask them.0 -
Again, yes this is probably true in 98% of cases.
But, of course, there were also some examples of both PPI & monthly packaged account fees not being detailed on statements. As RBS have admitted in writing re Style Card & Natwest respectively as just two examples.
There are 2 examples you have previously provided, doing it for a few months only as I believe you previously stated. It is a very very tiny tiny % of all cases would fall into either cases, nothing like 2% of cards. What you had was actually fraud, a criminal issue that would be flagged up by any savvy person who didn't agree to PPI then saw it appear on the statement and the shop or staff member would have been dealt with by the regulatory bodies within a month of taking out the card. The latter example would be picked up by anyone who noticed their balance didn't add up to the total on the card.
99.999% of cards didn't fall into thatSam 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
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards