We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
PPI Reclaiming successes and failures
Options
Comments
-
Yes, not sure on the exact amount
The PPI refund can potentially be used against that money, that is why they are checking with the IVASam 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 -
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.
What you are talking about is the tiny tiny % who like you had the box ticked by a staff member after you left, as per above post, anyone who read their statement would see it the month after so it would be pointless for any company to operate on that basis. It is nothing more than isolated "rogue" staff members.
The 99.999% simply forgot they agreed to the account or didn't read their documentation, it was not added in secret by anyone outside of a few isolated cases - unless you have actual evidence of that happening (not including people who just claim not to have known)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 -
FCA regulations effective 26 October 2015 do not allow premium rate 084, 087 or 09 numbers to be used for this.
Either the quoted premium rate 0844 number is out of date or the company is operating in breach of FCA regulations.
Who knows, just quoted the citigroup websiteSam 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 -
What you are talking about is the tiny tiny % who like you had the box ticked by a staff member after you left, as per above post, anyone who read their statement would see it the month after so it would be pointless for any company to operate on that basis. It is nothing more than isolated "rogue" staff members.
The 99.999% simply forgot they agreed
It's a small percentage yes; but, as dozens have reported it happened to them and their relatives merely on this forum, I tend to think it's more common than the miniscule number you suspect.
Yes, falsifying docs is a fraud matter.
I won't bore you with the differences between civil and criminal fraud, but sadly very few cases are brought. Indeed companies tend to say what you have said: it's just an isolated number of rogue staff. [Unless a 'killer email' is found as happened recently with A4e, or the garage which claimed for - by ticking & signing - CCAs for credit hire, recovery and storage charges for 1,800 customers]
But the City of London's specialist unit are getting better at raiding brokers, boiler rooms, CMCs, etc.
As Martin Lewis said earlier this week, on tv: "Most of what the BBA comes out with is complete nonsense. They need to just be honest about their failings. The reason I set up my site is so people could complain and see what had been going on for years."
I appreciate that it may have only been 1 or 2% of rogue staff; but, until recently retailers and banks even denied that targets and bonuses existed re sales achieved per month.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 -
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 that
That's a very naïve view - and I doubt you actually believe that if you re-read it. If people weren't ever informed, most wont have complained. The ABI, SRA and even the NHSLA recognise that fraud occurs in 3% of civil claims, so I'd suggest the likely proportion is going to be nearer this than the 0.0001% you opine. If retail or bank staff are incentivised to sell, it won't come as a surprise to learn that perhaps 1 or 2% did so fraudulently.
Indeed, there are many documented examples (yes 'evidence') of this happening.
When asked how it could have happened - including to one of his constituents - Andrew Tyrie MP [respected on all sides & very knowledgeable in this field], said in 2014:
"I won't say asleep, but the banks and regulators were essentially inactive until very recently. My Committee will certainly want to seek reassurance from the BBA that from now on they will come before us with 'open hands' and that there aren't further huge liabilities lurking in their back offices. I don't want to see a witch hunt, but we need to reach a point in time where the public can have confidence in dealing with their bank again."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 -
It's a tiny percentage, if that.It's a small percentage yes.
The "dozens" you say claim they knew nothing of the PPI they had will have failed to read what they signed and/or didn't check their statements. Many have simply forgotten agreeing, decades on.
It's claim companies who propagate the myth that this was widespread.0 -
No, I was referring to the dozens who have mentioned they did not tick or sign for PPI on the CCA, but it was done so after the event by a third party.
They weren't just claiming - they knew and some had the carbon copy showing this, as I did.
Yes, it wasn't widespread as I stated twice previously.
But, you (and only you) again appear unwilling to admit that it even went on at all.
It did in a very small number of cases by retailers over the years [in the same way a few rogue bank employees did with packaged accounts].
In fact your second paragraph can only be read as accusing them all of lying by making false claims. It happened and there's proof it did. Please just accept that fact.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 -
It's a tiny percentage, if that.
It's claim companies who propagate the myth that this was widespread.0 -
That's a very naïve view - and I doubt you actually believe that if you re-read it. If people weren't ever informed, most wont have complained. The ABI, SRA and even the NHSLA recognise that fraud occurs in 3% of civil claims, so I'd suggest the likely proportion is going to be nearer this than the 0.0001% you opine. If retail or bank staff are incentivised to sell, it won't come as a surprise to learn that perhaps 1 or 2% did so fraudulently.
Indeed, there are many documented examples (yes 'evidence') of this happening.
When asked how it could have happened - including to one of his constituents - Andrew Tyrie MP [respected on all sides & very knowledgeable in this field], said in 2014:
"I won't say asleep, but the banks and regulators were essentially inactive until very recently. My Committee will certainly want to seek reassurance from the BBA that from now on they will come before us with 'open hands' and that there aren't further huge liabilities lurking in their back offices. I don't want to see a witch hunt, but we need to reach a point in time where the public can have confidence in dealing with their bank again."
And once again, think of the principle of Occam's Razor
For this sort of fraud to work it relies on EVERY person who signed up for the card NEVER checking their statements. If even one person who knew they didn't tick the box for PPI checked their statements and saw PPI was added, they would rumble the scam and the staff member or store would be prosecuted.
You are confusing ALL fraudulent sales with the fraudulent claim you are talking about. Any claim like "you need this to get your application approved" would be included in that list, not just people ticking a box on a form after the customer left.
The FOS reported 1,434,606 PPI related cases reported to them between 2011-2016 (so far), 0.0001 = 143 cases approx. I don't see that as an unreasonable guess for 1 or 2 rogue staff members in a store carrying out such an act. I doubt you could find even 1/2 that number of cases where such an act was proven to take place.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
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards