Under 18 when loan was taken out, regards to ppi

spaniels_rule

I apologise.

I put my real D.O.B.

There was PPI attached to the loan. It was paid of in June 97.

spaniels_rule

Hi
I've also realised that I was working part-time too at the time, as I was at college,

Can anyone point me in the right direction please

wolverines

spaniels_rule wrote: »

Can anyone be of assistance regarding the helpful posts?

shall I complain, as I have 14 days to reply if i don't agree with Lloyds decision.

Thanks Again

It is not illegal to lend money to people under 18 (although almost no bank will because they won't be able to enforce any credit agreement if you default) although almost 100% you will have needed to have been 18 to be eligible for the PPI.

I would go back to them and make it clear that you were under 18 at the time of sale and were also a full time student.

dunstonh

As said, the lending to an under 18 is fine. However, the addition of PPI to an under 18 is not. Plus, you were a student. So, you have 2 good reasons to use.

spaniels_rule

Thanks!

Would they need proof at all?

I don't have any paper work for part time work or being a student

WatchMan

spaniels_rule wrote: »

Thanks!

Would they need proof at all?

I don't have any paper work for part time work or being a student

Your date of birth should be all they need. The fact that you were younger than 18 is enough of a reason to conclude that the policy was mis-sold.

You being a student is an additional reason and it is certainly worth mentioning. But they should only need the one.

By the way - watch yourself with time limits here. Have you had a final response letter from Lloyds? If so, remember you have 6 months from the date of this letter to take your case to the Ombudsman. Watch out that you don't stray over this.

spaniels_rule

Good Morning All,

Thanks for all the replys, I have now been on to Lloyds, saying that I don't agree with their decision, as I was in full time employment, and under 18, at the time of the loan.

Their response was they will reopen the case, and they have 6 weeks to respond. is this normal?

Thanks

wolverines

Yes this is normal. Do you mean you told them that you were a full time student?

spaniels_rule

yes I do sorry-- I was a full time student.

myright

Two points here:
The reason it was wrong for the bank to defend was because :
1) eligibility . You was under 18 at the point of sale
2) unsuitable. You was a Student