PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

joeybos

Hi - I used the online form to try and reclaim premium account charges from TSB. We were told by our bank we could only get an interest rate if we joined and previously we were given insurance as part of it - but due to a pre-exsisting illness i wasn't eligible but no one told me. we recieved a refund today of £3500!!! well worth the 2 minutes it took to complete the form ....thank you :-):T

LadyintheLibrary

Just wanted to say that I received a cheque today from M&S Bank which upheld my complaint about PPI on a credit card from 2005. This was the last one. I had put in five claims, all upheld, and have received just over £14,000. This was money I didn't expect to be sitting in my bank account several months ago, and I am grateful to the MSE website for information and advice for giving me the confidence to claim for mis-sold PPI on an overdraft, several loans, and a couple of credit cards dating back to 2002. Thank you.

Nasqueron

Mersey wrote: »

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.

I am asking you for proof of convictions/prosecutions/police figures etc proving your claim that there was a systematic operation of shop workers ticking PPI boxes after the customer left. You have not provided anything beyond your single anecdote. It is thus logical to suggest your claims of 1-2% (talking 15000+ cases just based on cases sent to the FOS) are not believable because of lack of evidence. Remember, people who forgot they agreed to it or simply pretended they didn't are anecdotes, not fact.

Please present evidence to support your accusations, be it police reports, FOS cases where it is PROVEN that tens of thousands of people had it added by the store after the contract was taken etc

Calum_McCue

I put in a PPI claim against CitiCard which was transfered to Opus cards who own it now.
I have just had a reply saying after their review they had found that no PPI had been applied but however they can confirm that a 'Lifestyle Insurance Premium' which is a different type of insurance was applied.
I have never heard of this and cant find anything on it.
Does anyone have any information to help me with my claim.
Thank you.

[Deleted User]

Calum_McCue wrote: »

Does anyone have any information to help me with my claim.

You don't have PPI.

However, in order to have ANY insurance cover refunded you'd have to show that it was mis-sold.


If you have a valid mis-selling complaint (not 'claim') you should direct it to Opus.

Do you have such a complaint? Why do you think the insurance was mis-sold? Note that it's not somehow wrong to have insurance.

nikitynoobiloo

After my neighbour successfully obtained a refund of PPI, i thought i would try the same. I sent a letter off and forgot about it. Two weeks later a letter came through saying we were owed £18,000! We rang the number to confirm and what account we wanted it to go in and it was in within 24 hours!! Happy days :j:T

Mersey_2

Nasqueron wrote: »

I am asking you for proof of convictions/prosecutions/police figures etc proving your claim that there was a systematic operation of shop workers ticking PPI boxes after the customer left. You have not provided anything beyond your single anecdote. It is thus logical to suggest your claims of 1-2% (talking 15000+ cases just based on cases sent to the FOS) are not believable because of lack of evidence. Remember, people who forgot they agreed to it or simply pretended they didn't are anecdotes, not fact.

Please present evidence to support your accusations, be it police reports, FOS cases where it is PROVEN that tens of thousands of people had it added by the store after the contract was taken etc

I think this is where you're failing to understand what happens in the counter fraud field across several industries and the civil law and criminal law consequences.


For some reason you seem to think that a lack of criminal prosecutions aids your point. It does not. If your point is that these are rare, I agree. Does this mean that fraud is almost unheard of amongst insurers, banks, in retail - absolutely not.


As I've said previously 1% - 3% is the agreed figure for fraud across all of these fields, both by claimants and also internally.


Do I wish banks, stores and insurers would refer more cases to the police? Of course. Do I also wish that police/CPS would undertake more investigations and criminal prosecutions? Yes again. Does this mean this fraud doesn't take place on a weekly basis? Of course not.


The difference is that the 1% - 3% figure is the proportion agreed by counter fraud experts, loss assessors and accountants and so on. Whereas your 0.0001% contention has been plucked from the air because you don't appear to want to believe that yes, eg 1% of bank staff, store staff, lawyers, indeed any professionals are dishonest and act upon it for their financial gain.


[I've combated civil fraud - mainly on behalf of insurers and the MIB - for over 12 years. Although colleagues deal with fraud committed by postmen, doctors, local govt officers and so on. Even in litigated matters where we plead fraud in a Defence, more often that not the Judge will merely dismiss the Claimant's claim and make the claimant pay our costs. This then results in our enforcing the Judgment by way of bailiffs or other enforcement methods.


Even where the Judge makes a finding of fraud, it's rare for him then to refer the matter for a criminal prosecution. So there's a lack of judicial but also industry will for criminal prosecutions to take place. As was said on BBC Moneybox there are good and bad reasons for this. Firstly, the respective industries do not want to detail internal fraud as this may encourage others by advertising the practice. But, sadly the ABI, BBA, IoD, Usdaw have also all admitted in the past that they don't want to damage their reputations by publicising the fact that some of their members have been perpetrating fraud.]


Is internal fraud rare? Yes, thankfully. Is it unheard of? No. Again, banks tend not to want to publicise this and most are just dismissed for gross misconduct or resign. But one high street counter fraud manager noted that at his high street bank, 0.8% of staff left in 2014 due to a fraud (proven or allegation/disciplinary pending). The DWP Select Committee also heard that 0.75% of welfare to work staff had left for the same reason in 2012 - before the DWP investigation began into 'welfare to work' firm A4e's staff forging claimants' signatures and pocketing bonus payments. So, in that example that's 178 staff who went due to fraud but only 28 were criminally prosecuted.



The other factor you may be failing to consider is that a couple of dodgy bank employees or retail floor staff members could affect eg a dozen customers each day. Indeed the whistleblower who spoke to Martin Lewis said he saw it go on dozens of times each week. Sadly, where cash incentives exist a small minority will always abuse that bonus scheme.

There is no good reason for believing that bank or retail staff are 10,000 times more honest per 100,000 than lawyers or doctors for example!

dontlikemondays

Hi Guys,

My PPI claim is quite complex and a word of warning for RBS claiments.

I won a case against them for +£4k

They stated a cheque would be issued within 7 days.
However, they then sent the whole amount to their own holding account stating arrears on original account.

I am now fighting to actually receive my own money back.

I have written to them stating the following.

1. The loan was eventually paid off
2 They sold the loan to AIC in 2006 anyway so they no longer have any interest
3. If they are thinking of "setting off" how can they pay AIC or themselves when nothing exists?
4. Even if I still had arrears, the courts & the FoS have already stated that they cannot "off set" unless it's their own account that the PPI is connected to.
5. In any case, I may have had more important arrears than their loan

Will let you know what happens

[Deleted User]

dontlikemondays wrote: »

1. The loan was eventually paid off
2 They sold the loan to AIC in 2006 anyway so they no longer have any interest
3. If they are thinking of "setting off" how can they pay AIC or themselves when nothing exists?
4. Even if I still had arrears, the courts & the FoS have already stated that they cannot "off set" unless it's their own account that the PPI is connected to.
5. In any case, I may have had more important arrears than their loan

1 - The FCA allow redress to go against defaults, arrears and debts written off. So, that reason is not valid.
2 - How do you know they sold it? AIC is just as likely to have been employed as a collection agency I'm afraid.
3 - What do you mean "nothing exists"? If you failed to pay all the debt (interest included) then of course it still exists, you are simply no longer being chased for it
4- That might well be the case if the debt was actually sold; but, again, that is not as likely as you seem to think.
5-It is not a common scenario and you'd have to show you are in current financial hardship and have more pressing debts (council tax or utilities arrears typically) not other unsecured debts .

dontlikemondays

I disagree with you on just about every point.

The Ombudsman does also apparently

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=5623

And debt line describes AIC has:-

Allied International Credit (AIC) is a debt recovery company.

They buy debt that is in arrears from finance companies, telecommunications suppliers and other companies that you may have fallen behind on your repayments to. Despite them buying the debt for much less than you owe, they will usually chase you for the full amount of the debt.