PPI Reclaiming successes and failures

-taff

Don't go confusing mortgage MPPI with loan and credit card PPI.
The former is usually good, useful and can help if ou suffer a claomable event.
The latter was not really great if you could afford the repayments without it and weren't likely to suffer an extended period of no salary
And don't forget you would have agreed to this PPI, so if you're going to use 'not fit for purpose' as a complaint reason [please don't] then you're basically saying you didn't understand it when it was explained to you.


As I said, refer your complaints to the FOS using the reasons I outlined in my previous post.

Barney_Rubble_0403

Barclays Mortgage = £1700. From 1997-2001. Paid very quickly based on pre-existing medical condition and Mrs being a civil servant since 1984.

Awaiting outcome from Direct Line on same basis as ppi on mortgage paid from 2001 to present day. They will give a final decision by April 15th. Found out in 2010 when I was made redundant that the cover would only payout 50% for 6 months so policy not worth the paper it was written on. Never claimed as found temp work before landing my current job. Interesting to see if they ask any questions or proof of my claim of misspelling. :eek:

Bermonia

Why would you submit a claim of misspelling... surely a mis-selling claim would be much more appropriate lol

Barney_Rubble_0403

@Bermonia Now that did make me chuckle. Stupid mobile and auto-correct ��

dunstonh

Barclays Mortgage = £1700. From 1997-2001. Paid very quickly based on pre-existing medical condition and Mrs being a civil servant since 1984.

unlikely it was upheld because she was a civil servant. We know the FOS rejects complaints on mortgage PPI where the person is using civil service as a reason. Only one thing needs to exist and the pre-existing condition is most likely that one thing.

Awaiting outcome from Direct Line on same basis as ppi on mortgage paid from 2001 to present day. They will give a final decision by April 15th. Found out in 2010 when I was made redundant that the cover would only payout 50% for 6 months so policy not worth the paper it was written on.

If it only paid out 50% then this suggests it was arranged on a joint basis. Sole policies would pay out 100%. 6 months seems extremely short for an MPPI policy and have never seen a reference to DL policies only covering a non-standard 6 months. Are you sure about that?

Bermonia

Seems much more likely that the six months referred to probably related to a deferment period before claiming as cannot imagine an MPPI policy with such a small benefit period.

Barney_Rubble_0403

Policies were/are joint. I was unemployed for 2 months way back in 2010 so asked for a claim form from Direct Line. I think the terms of any entitlement to a claim claim were listed in the claim form which was the first time I had seen any details. As a joint claim, 50% and I'm sure the length of any single claim was only 6 months. Mind you, this was 8 years ago and ones memory does get a little foggy over time. I can remember doing quick calculations of a potential 6 month claim against 9 years of premiums paid and thinking not a great deal. Never claimed in the end. Chances are that I misread something. A 6 month deferment would be even worse as even after 2 months, things were very tight financially. Claiming jsa - that was another degrading task.

With the barclays payout, they of course tell you on what grounds your complaint was successful so interesting to read that the Civil Service bit may have been a dead end. Let's see what DL make of it.

Bermonia

Agree with Dunst very unlikely upheld due to being a civil servant, mich more likely result of the PEMC... although please be aware that not all policies excluded PEMCs, especially MPPI policies.

CaminoPauline

In June 1996 we took out a loan with First National Bank plc which included a payment protection premium. This was to finance the purchase of a conservatory by St Helen's Glass who seem to have acted as an agent for the bank. We have all the relevant, original paperwork.
We have contacted Santander (who we believe bought out FNB). They seem to have referred our claim to GE Money. GE Money have rejected our claim because, although they provided the finance, they did not sell it to us (apparently the St Helen's Glass agent did). GE money also state that s140A CCA does not apply to our loan agreement because it ..."was entered into before 6 April 2007 and was redeemed prior to 6 April 2008."...
As members of the Consumers Association, we have contacted 'Which?'. We have also contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service. Neither organisation has been able to help us achieve a satisfactory outcome.
We feel that we have a most genuine claim and that the spirit of the law is not being upheld in our particular case. St Helen's Glass is still trading and states on its website that it 'Still has the Class' since 1970. We have emailed St Helen’s Glass on their customer service page and have not received the courtesy of a reply or even an acknowledgement.
How do we ensure that the spirit of the law is being upheld? Is there anything else we should try? Is it worth going to a PPI claims company for help?
A & P Patterson

[Deleted User]

It's both in the spirit and letter of the law. It's massively pre regulation.

For heaven's sake, don't use a claims company. They'll bill you for a false second complaint. as well as not being any help.