Am I the only one not claiming PPI?

uncreative

tomtontom wrote: »

I've had no reason to claim either, but then I read what I'm signing up to and check my statements once in a while.

I do worry about the people getting very large amounts back - they must have had ridiculous amounts of debt to have incurred the cost in the first place. Quite sad really

Exactly! getting £6k for example??? what on earth was the principal that attracted £6k of PPI. I appreciate that some of that is interest and redress.

They should put a time limit on it now. Surely to goodness everyone has now had ample opportunity to claim it back. Give us all a break from the endelss texts and nuisance calls about PPI. Until the next thing......

ceredigion

No you are not the only one. A couple of things that I find annoying.
There seems to be an assumption that if you bought PPI by definition you were miss sold. Well NO.
People do not seem to be responsible for their own actions. you can't blame a bank if the client ticks the box to say they have read the T&Cs and haven't. Further more it is not the banks fault if there customer is to thick to understand.

ICan'tStandIt

societys_child wrote: »

I had ppi on a CC (I actively ticked the box myself) I never paid anything though 'cos I paid the balance every month. So my complaint would be that I wanted the amount of zero back + 8% . . .





. . . the 8% would come in handy

Even if you pay it off in full, you still owe them money on the day that they bill you as that is the day that the PPI premium would have been calculated.


To avoid paying PPI, you would need to pay the bill before it was even generated.


Was that what you did?

WatchMan

Goldiegirl wrote: »

BUT, I suspect most of these so called 'claims' are being made on a speculative basis, and the banks are throwing money at them because it's easier to do that, instead of trying to investigate something that happened nearly 20 years ago.

I am not so sure about this.

A large number of complaints will be made on a speculative basis. But a not insignificant number will be genuine.

I also do not think that it is common practice for banks to throw money at complaints in the hope that they do away. Where a refund is offered, this will more often than not be because there was a failing during the sales process.

tomtontom wrote: »

I do worry about the people getting very large amounts back - they must have had ridiculous amounts of debt to have incurred the cost in the first place. Quite sad really

Not necessarily. In some cases, the PPI was just very expensive. The 8% interest can add a lot to the redress total too - especially if the sale was sometime ago.

Sugarcandy

No I never had PPI either, sick of phone calls about it, tell them I never had it and they don't believe me they keep saying I probably didn't know about it. Always ticked the no box.

dunstonh

ICan'tStandIt wrote: »

Even if you pay it off in full, you still owe them money on the day that they bill you as that is the day that the PPI premium would have been calculated.


To avoid paying PPI, you would need to pay the bill before it was even generated.


Was that what you did?

With most cards, no PPI premium was payable if you paid in full within the interest free period.

ICan'tStandIt

dunstonh wrote: »

With most cards, no PPI premium was payable if you paid in full within the interest free period.

I was asking a specific question to a specific poster, but thanks for chiming in anyway.


Certainly any standard card that's not got any particular incentive running with it would have PPI calculated on the day that the statement was billed, regardless if whether or not that bill was then paid in full.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

I am not so sure about this.

A large number of complaints will be made on a speculative basis. But a not insignificant number will be genuine.

I also do not think that it is common practice for banks to throw money at complaints in the hope that they do away. Where a refund is offered, this will more often than not be because there was a failing during the sales process.

Believe me it's really not. I used to be involved in this field and percentage wise I reckon the number of complaints which were upheld because there was demonstrable proof of a failing in the sales process was single figures. The vast majority were either because it was cheaper and less hassle just to pay out regardless of the merits (any case that is defended and goes to FOS incurs a £900 fee whether it is upheld or not), or because the records were not available to investigate it effectively, or sometimes because the customer sounded honest, sincere and believable. The latter is exactly why use of a CMC often does more harm than good.

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

Believe me it's really not. I used to be involved in this field and percentage wise I reckon the number of complaints which were upheld because there was demonstrable proof of a failing in the sales process was single figures. The vast majority were either because it was cheaper and less hassle just to pay out regardless of the merits (any case that is defended and goes to FOS incurs a £900 fee whether it is upheld or not), or because the records were not available to investigate it effectively, or sometimes because the customer sounded honest, sincere and believable. The latter is exactly why use of a CMC often does more harm than good.

The FOS fee is £550 - the supplementary fee was stopped last year.

I'm still not overly convinced that a large number of refunds are just banks throwing money at consumer's to get rid of them.

Of the cases FOS sees, PPI is still the most complained about product and 62% of cases are upheld. If businesses were throwing money away willy-nilly, you'd expect these figures to be lower.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

The FOS fee is £550 - the supplementary fee was stopped last year.

I'm still not overly convinced that a large number of refunds are just banks throwing money at consumer's to get rid of them.

Of the cases FOS sees, PPI is still the most complained about product and 62% of cases are upheld. If businesses were throwing money away willy-nilly, you'd expect these figures to be lower.

I would agree that businesses would not give customers money "just to get rid of them". However, would reiterate that as per my previous post, there are plenty of cases paid out for commercial reasons rather than because there is positive evidence of misselling. I have witnessed this first hand. It's fairly logical especially when considering the number of complaints which are simply "he said, she said" verbal allegations for which no proof is ever going to exist either way.

PPI is the most complained about product mainly because of the armies of CMC cold callers which you do not get with any other product. Would agree that the uphold rate is high if that is the case (though there are now a number of firms with uphold rates well under 50%). However, from past experience FOS are very quick to uphold based on nothing more than pure speculation. Their decisions are underpinned by the belief that nobody would ever buy something they don't need.