PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

vanilla_twist

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It's even easier without ANY third party involvement.
(At least " Resolver" doesn't charge any fees, though)

Well I found resolver idiot proof and do not even need the cost of a stamp as they email complaint directly to the right department. I will be continuing my ppi journey utilising the site again.
V x

Nasqueron

vanilla_twist wrote: »

Well I found resolver idiot proof and do not even need the cost of a stamp as they email complaint directly to the right department. I will be continuing my ppi journey utilising the site again.
V x

Good to hear, I'm sure resolver will be happy to have yet more customer data to sell on

Holywell

Learned today that barclaycard upheld ppi complaint £5880 being paid to me. ThE total so far reclaimed is just over 12k. All for the price of a couple of stamps n phone calls n £10 for dsar. Just waiting for yorkshire bank to make a decision. Happy days! Go on do it yourself make those calls! It's worth it! I have done thus myself n only took since middle of November. Don't go to cmc it's easy to do it yourself :money::j:T;)

DavidAGuest

I always avoided PPI on loans and credit cards but when I applied for a Capital One card in 2004, although I did not request PPI (which the application proves) I was later told that I needed to have it in order to get the card.

I am a clergyman and it is has been interesting over many years to see HMRC get tied in knots as it tries to work out if we are self-employed (a stipend is not regarded as salary) and up until a few years ago there was a special department that dealt with any queries.

It didn't strike me until fairly recently that I had been paying PPI when I really didn't need it. In fact when I had applied for other cards in the past I was actually told that clergy didn't qualify for PPI! If you are told in a call that you can't have that card without having PPI you tend to assume the person knows what they are talking about.

I wanted to be absolutely sure in my mind that I hadn't ever had PPI before and checked with my banks/lenders, all of whom confirmed that I didn't. I then contacted Capital One, using Martin's form, and they claimed that I had not been mis-sold PPI and that was an end to it.

I then went to the Ombudsman, sending the evidence, but they have now twice told me that they believe I asked for PPI and therefore were not advising Capital One to pay anything. Oddly, they say they are "evidence based" but they have ignored my evidence and preferred to believe Capital One who say "such and such WOULD have happened at the time..." which is a lie. They also say that the policy wouldn't have been sold if it were unsuitable - yet at no point did anyone ever say anything more to me than that the PPI was required in order to take out the particular card.

I imagine there is nothing else I can do, but I thought it worth posting info about a failure as any information can be useful!

Nasqueron

DavidAGuest wrote: »

I always avoided PPI on loans and credit cards but when I applied for a Capital One card in 2004, although I did not request PPI (which the application proves) I was later told that I needed to have it in order to get the card.

I am a clergyman and it is has been interesting over many years to see HMRC get tied in knots as it tries to work out if we are self-employed (a stipend is not regarded as salary) and up until a few years ago there was a special department that dealt with any queries.

It didn't strike me until fairly recently that I had been paying PPI when I really didn't need it. In fact when I had applied for other cards in the past I was actually told that clergy didn't qualify for PPI! If you are told in a call that you can't have that card without having PPI you tend to assume the person knows what they are talking about.

I wanted to be absolutely sure in my mind that I hadn't ever had PPI before and checked with my banks/lenders, all of whom confirmed that I didn't. I then contacted Capital One, using Martin's form, and they claimed that I had not been mis-sold PPI and that was an end to it.

I then went to the Ombudsman, sending the evidence, but they have now twice told me that they believe I asked for PPI and therefore were not advising Capital One to pay anything. Oddly, they say they are "evidence based" but they have ignored my evidence and preferred to believe Capital One who say "such and such WOULD have happened at the time..." which is a lie. They also say that the policy wouldn't have been sold if it were unsuitable - yet at no point did anyone ever say anything more to me than that the PPI was required in order to take out the particular card.

I imagine there is nothing else I can do, but I thought it worth posting info about a failure as any information can be useful!

Unfortunately for you, the way the UK system works is "he who asserts must prove", that is to say if you claim you were told you had to take it out, you must prove this event happened, NOT for them to prove it didn't. The FOS allows firms to use their scripts/processes as proof of what should have happened during the call where copies of the call are not available. While I doubt you would be lying, many do - a huge number of complaints to banks listing various complaint reasons the customer has about how they were forced to have PPI were for accounts that didn't even have PPI on it. As such the firm can produce evidence of process which trumps your unprovable hearsay. Did you only use that complaint reason and not say that the PPI wouldn't cover you due to your role?

dunstonh

Oddly, they say they are "evidence based" but they have ignored my evidence and preferred to believe Capital One who say "such and such WOULD have happened at the time..." which is a lie.

What proof have you got to support your argument?

UK law is based on evidence and the the FOS work to balance of probability based on the available evidence.

Capital One's sales process was usually a phone call up after the card was agreed. They had a sales process for this phone call. So, they have to assume the sales process was followed unless there is evidence otherwise to say it wasnt.

suegrim

On 6th November I completed claim forms for both First Direct and MBNA with a lot of 'I don't knows' - before Christmas I received over £5000 back from First Direct, straight into my account

MBNA are being annoying with various delays, probably partly due to the takeover - firstly they wrote asking for more time until 2nd Jan, then on 3rd I received a text asking me to call them (patience needed) to answer further questions. To my surprise on 4th Jan I received a letter advising payment of £12,234.24 would be made within 28 days! A week later, updated letter sent that due to 'routine quality assurance check' the interest amount had been slightly revised (by £10) and payment would follow within 28 days - I'm of course delighted at the success of the complaint, but a little irritated at the pauses in processing it

I wanted to share as I've found other people's experiences very helpful, and already another friend has just successfully claimed a couple of thousand form First Direct as well

Mersey_2

Well done. Yes, the processes can take an age - a neighbour I helped received confirmation of redress in October and yet only received the £ this month (from HSBC).

Maddang

deadlydarcy wrote: »

Well, had it in my head that I definitely had PPI on a £3k loan I took out in 1996ish. Thought it was too far back but then heard about someone who had claimed on something from mid nineties, so went onto NatWest/RBS website, downloaded the form, filled out as much detail as I could remember, and sent it off on a Friday. Following Tuesday, had a text message saying they'd posted their findings...I assumed with such a quick response, they were saying "No, sorry, nothing to see here, please move on." I was away from home for work and my wife phoned to say the letter said they'd "upheld my complaint" and would be in touch with their findings.

Fast forward last weekend. We were away all weekend...came back to FIVE separate letters from RBS. "Bloody duplicates" I thought to myself.

Opened them one by one. They'd found a consolidated loan chain...four out of five of which had PPI attached. (I'd have sworn blind I only had PPI on the original!!). The first three were various totals that came to about £2.3k. "Woop" said I. The last one I opened was for PPI on a big consolidation loan my wife and I took out after a few years of financial irresponsibility...and we've since had 14 years of being sensible and are debt free apart from mortgage and a car. This one with PPI & interest came to £7K!!!!!

So, on filling out a form on a bit of whim, we're >£9k better off. Yay!! And no claims companies taking a great big chunk of it.

So, if you're thinking about it, download the bloody forms, fill them out and go for it. Happy Christmas to you all and best of luck.

I too had a NatWest consolidated loan chain with five out of five had PPI attached. I too thought I'd only had PPI on the original. In total I was reimbursed £2457. The largest one was from 1993 for a £4k loan for which I was reimbursed £1793. I don't really know how they calculate the reimbursement as the last loan in the chain was for £14k in 2000 and I was only reimbursed £216.

They said two older loans didn't have PPI. I'm wondering if I should ask if they still have a copy of the agreement. I didn't have any copies. What I find odd is that Natwest don't give any indication of how refund is calculated.

[Deleted User]

Maddang wrote: »

I'm wondering if I should ask if they still have a copy of the agreement.

They are not required to provide a copy of the agreement on closed accounts.

You can waste £10 on a full Subject Access Request (SAR) if you continue to be suspicious that you've received less than you were entitled to, but all this is likely to achieve is confirmation of what you've already been told.

You can also ask the Bank for a breakdown of their calculations, but once again that won't net you any more redress.