We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Help who do I claim my PPI back from?
Comments
-
Was meant to say....Shouldn't of been added0
-
This thread is about a credit card.LewisHamilton wrote: »No, you're wrong. I've seen many instances of PPI being automatically added onto a loan and sometimes there has been evidence of this with credit cards too.
Worked for multiple banks investigating PPI. Credit cards are different because the banks will often argue that it was sold via telephone at a later date after the credit card application went through.
If there is no evidence that the customer agreed to PPI, they do have a good chance of being successful with their claim. Hence why I pointed out that it might be worth looking at the credit card agreement if possible.
Its amazing that people still think PPI was not automatically added to the account, this happened loads of times with loans. Hence Lloyds' fine today.0 -
LewisHamilton wrote: »No, you're wrong. I've seen many instances of PPI being automatically added onto a loan and sometimes there has been evidence of this with credit cards too.
Worked for multiple banks investigating PPI. Credit cards are different because the banks will often argue that it was sold via telephone at a later date after the credit card application went through.
If there is no evidence that the customer agreed to PPI, they do have a good chance of being successful with their claim. Hence why I pointed out that it might be worth looking at the credit card agreement if possible.
Its amazing that people still think PPI was not automatically added to the account, this happened loads of times with loans. Hence Lloyds' fine today.
Lloyds' fine was for miss-handling PPI complaints, nothing to do with the sales process.
If you had proof of bank sales staff processed that were dishonest or instructions in writing for staff to add stuff on against the will of customers, why did you not blow the whistle at the time?
As previously stated, if a customer did not agree to PPI and it was added on after then the first bill / statement they got would show either (for a CC) a payment protection policy they hadn't agreed to or (for a loan) a higher monthly payment (or second payment) - nobody with any sense would just pay this extra money and not question it and it would immediately be brought to light via the press or similar that this fraud was going on.
You are possibly mixing up pressured sales or an "opt out" process using "automatic" rather than bank sales staff adding policies on after the customer has left having agreed a policy.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
TraceyD1976 wrote: »I actually applied for the credit card in one of the A&L branches. I don't recall having a convo about the PPI and yes I didn't study my statements back then, young and naive, where as of course I study everything nowadays. So yes that was my error. So I could claim against the fact that I had very good employee benefits for sickness and death and it wasn't needed and should have been added? And also the fact that it was never pointed out when I was made redundant and asked for help, that I could have claimed on the ppi whilst I was out of work, instead of struggling and getting into more debt before they sold it off to Idem? thanks again
Yes employee benefits are very good (6 months sick pay especially) and the fact you didn't claim lends weight to the complaint that you weren't aware what the policy was or that it existed.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Lloyds' fine was for miss-handling PPI complaints, nothing to do with the sales process.
If you had proof of bank sales staff processed that were dishonest or instructions in writing for staff to add stuff on against the will of customers, why did you not blow the whistle at the time?
As previously stated, if a customer did not agree to PPI and it was added on after then the first bill / statement they got would show either (for a CC) a payment protection policy they hadn't agreed to or (for a loan) a higher monthly payment (or second payment) - nobody with any sense would just pay this extra money and not question it and it would immediately be brought to light via the press or similar that this fraud was going on.
You are possibly mixing up pressured sales or an "opt out" process using "automatic" rather than bank sales staff adding policies on after the customer has left having agreed a policy.
I worked for Lloyds specifically during the period that they fined for mis-handling complaints and I saw it coming. Nothing to do with whistle blowing, I saw the news today and I was not shocked.
We were told to specifically not uphold complaints where the customer had clearly not opted in for the PPI. QA's rationale for this was because the PPI was included in the breakdown of costs they considered that they effectively agreed to PPI (even though they clearly hadn't ticked the box to opt in). I can guarantee that this is part of the mis-handling that Lloyds have been fined for.
Not mixing up anything, I understand the PPI process well. I understand your point about suitability being a better argument for mis-selling but to say PPI has never been added without a customers consent just isn't true. I have spoken to a couple of people that have admitted to doing anything with the PPI due to the high commission and targets they were set. Pressured sales relates to optionality, again different to added on automatically.
The original poster was 19, its very possible she was naive and did not take much notice of the PPI on the statements. I did the same with Homecare Insurance once. On the other hand, at 19 and in a full time job, the PPI may have been suitable for her anyway (unless the claims of her benefits are true). She may have even given consent but she cannot remember as it was so long ago.
At the end of the day she has nothing to lose making a claim.0 -
LewisHamilton wrote: »I worked for Lloyds specifically during the period that they fined for mis-handling complaints and I saw it coming. Nothing to do with whistle blowing, I saw the news today and I was not shocked.
We were told to specifically not uphold complaints where the customer had clearly not opted in for the PPI. QA's rationale for this was because the PPI was included in the breakdown of costs they considered that they effectively agreed to PPI (even though they clearly hadn't ticked the box to opt in). I can guarantee that this is part of the mis-handling that Lloyds have been fined for.
Not mixing up anything, I understand the PPI process well. I understand your point about suitability being a better argument for mis-selling but to say PPI has never been added without a customers consent just isn't true. I have spoken to a couple of people that have admitted to doing anything with the PPI due to the high commission and targets they were set. Pressured sales relates to optionality, again different to added on automatically.
The original poster was 19, its very possible she was naive and did not take much notice of the PPI on the statements. I did the same with Homecare Insurance once. On the other hand, at 19 and in a full time job, the PPI may have been suitable for her anyway (unless the claims of her benefits are true). She may have even given consent but she cannot remember as it was so long ago.
At the end of the day she has nothing to lose making a claim.
You are confusing 2 things
The recent fine was for miss-handling complaints, it has nothing to do with the actual miss-selling. So what you are talking about with regards to the bank unfairly rejecting a complaint - yes they were fined for that. The actual miss-selling is completely different.
As per previous comments, if you applied for a card or loan and the bank employee ticked a box on your form after you left that would be gross misconduct and would lead to a sacking and likely an end to any career in finance they hoped for - as soon as someone complained about a product they rejected appearing on their bill the bank would look at the statement, see it was ticked and as the customer didn't want it, QED the employee was guilty.
I don't know who you talked to but bank staff were rarely (if ever) on commission, staff in shops selling store cards may well have been. Bank staff may have employed high pressure sales techniques but commission for an employee working behind a counter - no. Moreover, for all the stuff pre-2005, none of it was even wrong, the rules that came in 14-1-2005 that were retrospectively applied to pre-2005 sales by the FOS were obviously not in force pre-2005 and the bank staff were almost certainly not doing anything wrong.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
You are confusing 2 things
The recent fine was for miss-handling complaints, it has nothing to do with the actual miss-selling. So what you are talking about with regards to the bank unfairly rejecting a complaint - yes they were fined for that. The actual miss-selling is completely different.
As per previous comments, if you applied for a card or loan and the bank employee ticked a box on your form after you left that would be gross misconduct and would lead to a sacking and likely an end to any career in finance they hoped for - as soon as someone complained about a product they rejected appearing on their bill the bank would look at the statement, see it was ticked and as the customer didn't want it, QED the employee was guilty.
I don't know who you talked to but bank staff were rarely (if ever) on commission, staff in shops selling store cards may well have been. Bank staff may have employed high pressure sales techniques but commission for an employee working behind a counter - no. Moreover, for all the stuff pre-2005, none of it was even wrong, the rules that came in 14-1-2005 that were retrospectively applied to pre-2005 sales by the FOS were obviously not in force pre-2005 and the bank staff were almost certainly not doing anything wrong.
How about..
"Badly designed and poorly managed incentive schemes that led front line sales staff to focus on hitting targets and earning bonuses, rather than putting customer interests first."
Are you aware why Lloyds were fined £28,038,800 in Dec 2013?
“The incentive schemes rewarded advisers through variable base salaries, individual and team bonuses and one-off payments and prizes.”
http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/final-notices/lloyds-tsb-bank-and-bank-of-scotland.pdf
Also
http://forums
.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=56539629&&_ga=1.27729852.1632294460.1418741787#post56539629
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2201063/Revealed-The-bonus-list-encourages-pressure-cooker-sales-culture-Lloyds.html0 -
How about..
"Badly designed and poorly managed incentive schemes that led front line sales staff to focus on hitting targets and earning bonuses, rather than putting customer interests first."
Are you aware why Lloyds were fined £28,038,800 in Dec 2013?
“The incentive schemes rewarded advisers through variable base salaries, individual and team bonuses and one-off payments and prizes.”
http://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/final-notices/lloyds-tsb-bank-and-bank-of-scotland.pdf
Also
http://forums
.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=56539629&&_ga=1.27729852.1632294460.1418741787#post56539629
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/saving/article-2201063/Revealed-The-bonus-list-encourages-pressure-cooker-sales-culture-Lloyds.html
How about...
Separating advised sales with non-advised sales?
I'm sure you can find a link that will explain the difference to help it become clear.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
How about...
Separating advised sales with non-advised sales?
I'm sure you can find a link that will explain the difference to help it become clear.
Not sure what point you're trying to make or why you feel I need to find a link to help"it" become clear?
Regardless, your assertion about commission is incorrect.0 -
Not sure what point you're trying to make or why you feel I need to find a link to help"it" become clear?
Regardless, your assertion about commission is incorrect.
Nope, as I said, read up on advised sales and non-advised sales in the financial sense and you can then distinguish between a staff member selling a product on a non-advised basis and a qualified staff member trained to sell on an advised basis.
The person in a bank without formal qualifications who is not allowed to operate on an "advised sale" basis is not on commission, i.e. the person who would simply point to a leaflet and allow someone to sign a form.
The person in a bank with formal qualifications who is allowed to operate on an advised sale basis could well be on commission and even do pressure sales but an advised sale is more than just signing a form.
That is the difference.
A box ticker without qualifications suggesting the customer take PPI is not on commission.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards