What if you signed for PPI?

malcolmgd

I remarried 4 years ago with my wife and I both having been previously married. Six months after her split from her previous husband she needed to get another car. She was a single mother in a new house 2 kids and in the middle of a messy divorce. She had never had, or applied for a loan before. She applied for the loan in the garage, it was approved. She was then advised to take out a PPI, with the salesman explaining that “it’s safer and everyone takes it out nowadays”. She was then persuaded to takeout GAP (guaranteed asset protection) and RVP (replacement vehicle protection).
She had a part time job, but also had a monthly independent income from her ex-husband to support her and her children. She had no need for critical ill cover, redundancy (she left work 6 months after taking the loan), and the other stuff. When she said a couple of years ago she had taken PPI, GAP and RVP I asked her why she had taken it. She replied “I was led to believe that’s what everyone else did”. In any case, I, like her, thought that if you knew you had signed then there was no mis selling. We know how silly this sounds, but we would both like to know the definition of mis selling PPI.
When she looks back she agrees they have seen her coming!!
The figures are:
PPI £56.00 per month x 36,,, GAP £348 x 1,,, RVP £329 x 1
My questions are:
Does signing the agreement mean there is no mis selling?
The last payment was made 6 years and 4 months ago, is it too late if there is a case?
We have all the original paperwork.

dunstonh

She had no need for critical ill cover

She probably does have a need for it but from what you say, she doesnt have that (and CIC is not PPI).

redundancy (she left work 6 months after taking the loan),

Point of sale is what matters. Not future events.

Does signing the agreement mean there is no mis selling?

No. The seller has some responsibility when it comes to financial products. They dont have to check suitability on non-advised cases but they do have to check eligibility. You say she was part time. Was she working less than 16 hours a week?

malcolmgd

Hi thanks for responding. I think I may have misled you. Its called a payment protection plan and was to cover Life, Critical illness, Disability and Redundancy. She never needed any of them. the job was part time 15 hours a week, and her ex husband had the equivalents of this PPP in place. When this was signed she suspected that she may leave work altogether within the year. She knew that when all the financial affairs were settled she wouldn't need to work again. Hope it makes sense!

takman

malcolmgd wrote: »

Hi thanks for responding. I think I may have misled you. Its called a payment protection plan and was to cover Life, Critical illness, Disability and Redundancy. She never needed any of them. the job was part time 15 hours a week, and her ex husband had the equivalents of this PPP in place. When this was signed she suspected that she may leave work altogether within the year. She knew that when all the financial affairs were settled she wouldn't need to work again. Hope it makes sense!

If she knew all that then she shouldn't have signed up for it. When the salesman said everyone takes it out then that's probably correct from the amount of people claiming back PPI. So if it coveted her for her situation the day she took it out then it isn't misselling.

Insider101

Signing the agreement doesn't, in itself, mean the product can't be missold as everyone does that. However, nothing you have said indicates missale. Missale means that you were misled or misinformed about what the product was and what it did, resulting in you buying a product you wouldn't have done if it wasn't for the misleading info. So was this the case and if so what misleading info was provided?

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

Missale means that you were misled or misinformed about what the product was and what it did, resulting in you buying a product you wouldn't have done...

I don't quite agree with this. I think the definition is a little wider - for example, your definition wouldn't seem to cover a situation where the policy was added without someones knowledge.

I'd say that mis-sale just means that something went wrong in the sale. The result being that the customer ended up with a policy which they: didn't want/ wasn't suitable for them/ they wouldn't have taken had a mistake not happened... the list probably goes on.

Going back to the OP's question - signing for PPI doesn't mean that there is no mis-sale. For example, in this particular scenario, one alarm bell is the fact that the policy holder was working less than 16hours a week.

Insider101

WatchMan wrote: »

I don't quite agree with this. I think the definition is a little wider - for example, your definition wouldn't seem to cover a situation where the policy was added without someones knowledge.

I'd say that mis-sale just means that something went wrong in the sale. The result being that the customer ended up with a policy which they: didn't want/ wasn't suitable for them/ they wouldn't have taken had a mistake not happened... the list probably goes on.

Going back to the OP's question - signing for PPI doesn't mean that there is no mis-sale. For example, in this particular scenario, one alarm bell is the fact that the policy holder was working less than 16hours a week.

If a policy was literally added without someone's knowledge then IMO, this would constitute fraud rather than misselling. However, this allegation is pretty well impossible to prove and if I had a quid for every time I had heard someone make it and evidence had turned up proving they took it perfectly voluntarily I'd be a rich man. So I can see why it gets lumped into the same bracket. You could add in that providing a recommendation for the customer to take out a product when it wasn't suitable for their needs is also misselling, however, most PPI sales were non advised and hence this would cease to be a factor.

malcolmgd

Thanks for the info guys, it's starting to look like it wasn't missold. She's just p****d off now she knows she's spent what is looking like £2500 on top of a £10,000 + the interest loan. She left work after 6 months when she got her lump sum settlement from her ex, which she knew was coming, but decided to let the loan run. We don't think its worth pursuing a claim with the answers given here. Thanks for all your help.


I do have 1 question. What is the significance of being part time? I was wrong when I said she worked 15 hours a week, she worked 12 hours per week for the NHS and hasn't needed to work since.

Insider101

malcolmgd wrote: »

Thanks for the info guys, it's starting to look like it wasn't missold. She's just p****d off now she knows she's spent what is looking like £2500 on top of a £10,000 + the interest loan. She left work after 6 months when she got her lump sum settlement from her ex, which she knew was coming, but decided to let the loan run. We don't think its worth pursuing a claim with the answers given here. Thanks for all your help.


I do have 1 question. What is the significance of being part time? I was wrong when I said she worked 15 hours a week, she worked 12 hours per week for the NHS and hasn't needed to work since.

This may change things. With most policies you needed to work a minimum 16 hours per week to be covered. So if she wasn't doing so then she may not have been eligible which she presumably was not made aware of. If this is the case then it is grounds for complaint.

wolverines

As above, if she was working less than 16 hours per week then she is very unlikely to have been eligible for the policy. Suppose it would depend on the terms of this particular policy but the 16 hours minimum is pretty much always a requirement.

I would say lead with this as it is a strong complaint point.

WatchMan

Insider101 wrote: »

If a policy was literally added without someone's knowledge then IMO, this would constitute fraud rather than misselling. However, this allegation is pretty well impossible to prove and if I had a quid for every time I had heard someone make it and evidence had turned up proving they took it perfectly voluntarily I'd be a rich man. So I can see why it gets lumped into the same bracket. You could add in that providing a recommendation for the customer to take out a product when it wasn't suitable for their needs is also misselling, however, most PPI sales were non advised and hence this would cease to be a factor.

Fraud and mis-selling aren't mutually exclusive.

It is a very common complaint point and it isn't as common as some people seem to make it out to be. But it did happen with examples on either end of the seriousness scale - from ticks being placed on applications after the consumer had left the office to the use of opt out boxes.