PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

Mersey_2

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's a tiny percentage, if that.

It's claim companies who propagate the myth that this was widespread.

You've merely repeated your earlier post.


I thought you'd matured from your "Seeya!" post last year, after I provided facts you didn't like on that occasion too.


Yes, it isn't widespread. Nor is it non-existent.

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

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.

But that simply isn't true.


In almost all of the civil fraud examples I mentioned, it wasn't (either itemised at all or sent out). That's precisely how they got away with it for so long.


If a fraudster garage/CMC adds bogus credit hire, recovery & storage charges to a personal injury claim - by ticking boxes and forging their signature - they obviously don't send a copy of that doc to the claimant, otherwise, yes, they would be rumbled straight away.


Indeed in the example I gave, it took 3 years for the scam to come to light - and only because a copy doc was accidentally sent to that claimant to sign.


In the same way, of the few people mentioned who were victims of fraud by bank staff or retailers, many were only alerted to this by IFED, IFIG or the police, as the statement was never sent. Sadly often the person committing the fraud was also the person who actioned letters going out. Clearly you're not a very clever fraudster if you action a fraud and then send proof of the same to the victim! I'm sure you can see that.


I attended a counter fraud conference recently and you'd be amazed how pervasive fraud is. It may only account for 3% of civil matters, but it's found everywhere. Even in the most trusted professions - such as dentists and vicars - there were examples of fraud against the NHS, Diocese and sham marriages for payment respectively.


I see no good reason why those who suspect fraud is widespread in other areas, should think that retail or bank staff are somehow immune to ill-gotten monetary gain.

I suspect it's only 1 or 2% of staff. That's hardly an outlandish claim and would be lower than in almost any other industry. There are rogue brokers who backdate insurance cover for fraudulent claims, bank staff who take out ghost credit cards. All are thankfully rare events, but do tend to be in the 1-2% of lost revenue range.


Why isn't this more widely known? As Paul Lewis of Radio 4's Moneybox recently asked. Well, first for good reason (we don't want to give more potential fraudsters ideas). But also, sadly the BBA etc don't want to publicise that their members have been victims of frauds perpetuated by their own staff. Only 28 were criminally prosecuted last year. Most are just dismissed and repay the £.

Nasqueron

You have mentioned two things:

1) Your own case where a box was ticked after you left - an isolated example by a corrupt sale staff member on commission
2) Examples of where the bank made a mistake and didn't print the PPI amount on the statement

Are you seriously trying to suggest there was a windspread fraud among mainstream businesses where the model involved corruption from the sales staff all the way to the top of the finance where a shop decided to tell all their staff to tick the box for PPI after the customer left the shop and then the finance team intentionally didn't send statements out for 3 years? That's even more ludicrous a conspiracy than your first claim - you're now suggesting they hoped nobody would ask for a statement in that period?

Are you saying in your example you received statements hiding the PPI or that you didn't receive statements) and you never questioned why either the balance didn't add up to the total spend or why you never got statements for three years?

WatchMan

PPI policies were certainly added without people's consent. As other people have said, it probably isn't as widespread as CMCs have made it out to be - but I don't think anyone can really put any measure on how common place the practice was.

Since working in this area, I've seen three examples of PPI clearly being added without the customer's consent. The businesses involved ranged from small businesses to medium sized banks. I find it hard to believe that it only occurred on one occasion and to that particular customer.

Saying that people ought to spot that this has happened when they read their statements is largely irrelevant when it comes to a complaint about the mis-sale. And PPI wasn't always clearly marked on statements. I've seen it described as 'charge'.

It happened. Probably not as much as a CMC would have you believe - but it's not unheard of.

Crucially, it isn't wrong for people to complain it happened. Search the FOS's decisions and you'll see complaints upheld based on consumer's complaining that they didn't consent. Often, the fact that they mentioned it is the reason for the uphold.

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

No - for the fourth time - I'm not suggesting it's widespread.


Merely that it's nearer 1% or 2% than the 0.0001% you opined.


(Although I was mainly correcting Moneyineptitude who repeatedly stated that it did not even exist).


Indeed, suggesting that fraud is 1 or 2% is not a controversial suggestion.


No, there needs to be no chain to the top (again, no idea why you think this).


The bank staff who fraudulently created ghost credit cards; the garage who added bogus credit hire; etc then did not send out statements to the customer. It's quite straightforward. It would be a plainly stupid attempt at fraud to commit the fraud and then alert the victim of that fraud to your act!

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

And once again, think of the principle of Occam's Razor

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.

If you really think it only took place in 1 store in the whole Country, over the past 25 years, you really are far more naïve - or trusting of 100% of retail and bank staff - than I realised.

auntiehelen

Thanks Martin, just received notification of the £1,600 coming back from a loan PPI I had with Lloyds back in 2003. But I noticed in the letter that came with it the warning that it could affect my working tax credit claim next year AND they have deducted £183-odd in tax (even though i don't pay any) After following the link to HMRC, it looks as though I will have to keep hold of just under half the payout, as next year's working tax will be reduced by that amount as the accumulated interest on the PPI will be counted as unearned income. I can claim the £183 back if I fill out an HMRC form, but a bit fed up about the money they will claw back on this

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

If you really think it only took place in 1 store in the whole Country, over the past 25 years, you really are far more naïve - or trusting of 100% of retail and bank staff - than I realised.

Nope, not naive but logical and versed in debates - google "burden of proof" fallacy - you are making the accusation of fraud against these companies and suggesting it happens a lot and there were numerous cases - but you have not provided any evidence at all of such events, QED we don't assume you must be right, but rather, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Mersey_2

Again not 'numerous' or a 'lot'.


Merely closer to 1 or 2% - the norm for civil fraud by employees - than your plainly absurd 0.0001% assertion.


I've previously - as have others - provided evidence of the same. I thought you accepted this, merely you think that it was a one off act perpetrated by 1 or 2 rogue employees in just 1 store or bank branch?


Even amongst solicitors, 1% have been disciplined for fraud breaches by the regulator. [Actually closer to 1.5% at the time, as by definition many are now ex-solicitors as they were struck off the Roll]


It sadly goes on in all sectors where thee are £ incentives for it to happen. Does this mean you should never use one - of course not. You'd have to be very lucky for it to happen to you. But it'd be equally silly to deny its existence.

lindylooooo

I received a cheque today for nearly £4000 after claiming PPI back on my Halifax mortgage which I didn't know I had ! Whoop whoop!
:j

It took two phone calls and the wonderful motivation and help from this website to do it.
My partner died in 2014, the life insurance paid out ( Halifax life insurance) yet the same company wouldn't entertain looking at my case til I had a grant of representation which I didn't have (or need),also saying I had 6 months to pursue it
I dithered for ages (over a year!)whether to go through probate as it can be expensive, just for the Halifax to even look at the claim let alone pay out, thinking was it worth it, have I left it too long,will they believe I didn't know I had it(for 15 yrs!), too painful, still grieving etc....until
one day in a fit of independence, self confidence or sheer bloody mindedness I applied for probate myself for £250 thinking it was worth a shot, received it and sent in the forms 18 months after the initial communication.Three weeks and a phone call later the cheque arrived.
As important as the money is, the feeling of empowerment for sorting this myself -(with a little help of course) is amazing.

So for all the ditherers out there - like I was- just do it, you have nothing to lose and perhaps a lot to gain