PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

Nasqueron

Traceyhalifax wrote: »

Completely new to this and hopefully someone can help

Our mortgage of £22400 was taken out in 1993, we had £9000 in savings - proof supplied (and in the same branch of the Leeds Building Society) and 1/2 share in a detached farmhouse with 4 acres of land, as completely naive first time buyers we took out PPI, on our questionnaire we stated that our savings covered 5 x more than the PPI policy would have paid, we were both in stable full time employment and our assets more than covered a shortfall should the need arise. As we had no other financial commitments or dependants as long as one of us was employed our mortgage payments would have been more than covered.

The mortgage was arranged in branch and in person

Halifax and the Financial Ombudsman have turned down our claim stating that the policy was appropriate, our savings were insufficient and it would have taken time to sell our 1/2 share in the farmhouse and land and in that time we could have lost the house we had the mortgage on, they feel we were not pressurised into buying the policy and that it was probably explained in full.

Is there anything further we can do?

If the rejection was by an adjudicator then you will have been told in your letter that there is a right to refer to the ombudsman within 6 months however only around 10% of these are overturned. If you had such large savings why did you not just use them for the house to save interest? A half share in a house is irrelevant - how quickly could the other owner have raised funds to buy you out or would you force a quick sale and lose money on the deal? Not soon enough to save the house in those days of less consumer friendly rules. The fact you were in jobs just shows it was suitable cover, very few jobs are immune to redundancy as many civil servants found out since 2008 for example!

Traceyhalifax

Still unsure as to response by Halifax that £9000 in savings insufficient, this works out to 5 years payments, policy only covered 12 months, my query is why we were sold the policy in the first place,

Traceyhalifax

Hi, we have had a Final Decision which we have sent back stating we did not agree with the rejection because the issue of savings was not addressed, they did not check any other financial obligations - there were not any or any dependants - but they alluded to other financial commitments in their reply, they also stated that in all probability the PPI scheme was not sold in a pressurised manner but that all aspects may not have been explained properly (to my mind a direct contradiction, they either followed correct procedure or they didn’t.

The letter also stated that if we rejected their decision we were free to pursue compensation via other avenues but do not state what this is.

Traceyhalifax

Thank you for your reply, think we kept savings on advice of Building society, our savings were enough for 5 years payments so the 1/2 share in the house is relevant and we are sure it would have raised funds long before the savings ran out, we are also under the impression PPI was a contingencypolicy if the means to pay a mortgage were not available, we have proved we had 5 years worth of payments, both of us were in steady employment, indeed my husband is still with the same company, I know this qualifies us for the policy, but still raises the question should it have been sold to us, especially in a pressurised manner, or mentioned as available but not appropriate as we did have financial security

[Deleted User]

Traceyhalifax wrote: »

we have had a Final Decision which we have sent back stating we did not agree with the rejection

You do appreciate what a FINAL Ombudsman decision is?

Traceyhalifax wrote: »

The letter also stated that if we rejected their decision we were free to pursue compensation via other avenues but do not state what this is.

It's not for the Ombudsman service to suggest such other routes, but, realistically, that could only be via the courts.

Equally realistically, you would lose any such case where the Ombudsman has already ruled against you.

Time to put all this behind you.

Sorry.

Traceyhalifax

Thank you, thought the same but so many flaws and contradictions in their final decision letter, their decision does not make sense and just wondered if someone had some helpful advice that there was another course of action to take, but if not at least we have Explored all avenues open to us

dunstonh

Still unsure as to response by Halifax that £9000 in savings insufficient, this works out to 5 years payments, policy only covered 12 months, my query is why we were sold the policy in the first place,

Its not the cost of the payments that matters. it is your income. 6-12 months INCOME is the ideal figure.

[Deleted User]

Traceyhalifax wrote: »

our savings were enough for 5 years payments

While that may well have been the case, if you were made unemployed you would have had other payment obligations as well. That's why, in order for the PPI to be considered unnecessary, you needed to have around 12 months total income in savings. I suspect you earned far more than 9K per annum.

Once again, sorry.

Traceyhalifax wrote: »

so many flaws and contradictions in their final decision letter,

Care to point these out? I'm not seeing any such in what you have posted?

rsspence

I have been chasing PPI for my wife with LLoyds TSB. I have now reached a final decision with the ombudsman and they are not up holding my complaint. But I feel they are glossing over a key fact.

The decisions is based on the probability of LLoyds not mis-selling the PPI due to lack of evidence. The usual arguments of didn't need etc and can remember were not enough to win. But on a final check after the FOS request to agree or disagree the decision, I have found what I think is very important.

Quoting from the response to my initial LLoyds claim -

"Having checked our records in line with your concern, they don't show you took out a PPI policy with the product quoted above.Therefore I cannot currently investigate your concerns further. I've also included a copy of the Application/Agreement which shows no [M]PPI was attached to the account." (Application was never attached).

This statement was then proven by me to be wrong as I sent 2 x statements I found showing PPI. LLoyds then said

"My further investigation has shown that our original decision that this card was not protected by PPI was incorrect. My review of this policy has not found enough evidence to show that it was mis-sold."
According to them the policy started 7/4/1999, probably on start date of credit card.

Ombudsman has sided with them.

My arguement on now finding this from Lloyds, is how can the FOS side with them stating no evidence, when they have referenced evidence held (Applcation\Agreement). Then for this NOT to be the case and suddenly just rely on selling policy after their so called mistake.

Either Lloyds didn't bother to check initially and lied about the application/agreement existing or it never did and once proven by me that PPI was there, they then without explanation of previous 'evidence' decided to say No mis-selling took place.

Is there anything I can do about this? As far as I am concerned they have lied either initially then corrected. Surely this is wrong and Lloyds or the FOS should be questioned about this.

This is very late in the day so help is needed, I will not agree with the FOS findings and have raised the Lloyds statements with them , they have replied saying this WAS taken into account. I cannot believe Lloyds can get away with this.

[Deleted User]

rsspence wrote: »

Is there anything I can do about this? As far as I am concerned they have lied either initially then corrected. Surely this is wrong and Lloyds or the FOS should be questioned about this.

You are completely losing sight of what your PPI complaint was about.

You should realise you are not going to win redress by further complaining about what you see as an initial mis-handling of your complaint.

Mistakes happen.
Lloyds initially couldn't find your account.
Then they did find your account.
So what?

That doesn't make the subsequent failure of your complaint in any way wrong, especially as the Ombudsman has sided with the bank.

You've already exhausted the complaint process.

Time to move on now...