Step may have paid a lot of PPI but no longer with us

Crapwithmoney

My stepfather had to take out a bridging loan in 1990 (ish) ... I suspect he may have taken out PPI ... He's no longer alive ... Would we have any recompense??
Thanks in advance...

dunstonh

I suspect he may have taken out PPI

What makes you think that?

(given the short term nature of bridging loans, it wasnt a frequent addition).

He's no longer alive .

So, how would you know its been mis-sold or not?

Would we have any recompense??

1 - you dont know if there was PPI
2 - you havent stated why you believe it was mis-sold.

We cant comment on whether you have grounds for redress if you dont tell us why you think there was a wrongdoing.

magpiecottage

Is it, perhaps, more that you suspect you might be able to get some free money than that your stepfather really had PPI?

After all, as dunstonh says, the mere fact that you suspect that there was PPI does not mean there really was and you have provided no evidence whatsoever that it existed, who sold it, whether FOS would have any jurisdiction or that you are eligible to make a complaint on behalf of the estate.

Crapwithmoney

Am I missing something here? I suspect 99% of the people who were missold PPI had no idea they were missold it... Also most people don't even know they had it ( that's the point of the scandal isn't?) ..... The reason I suspect it may have been included in his loan is that at a certain period in time it was "routinely" added to many loans without the loanee fully understanding it ... i'm simply asking if it was during this period ... If it is my 84 yr old mother may be due compensation for what was later discovered to be an illegal (or at least underhand) transaction ... Apologies if I offended you .. I'm not after "free" money .. I'm seeing if my mother could make a legitimate claim ...

dunstonh

I suspect 99% of the people who were missold PPI had no idea they were missold it...

And half the people complaining about mis-sold PPI dont actually have PPI. So, when they make allegations of wrongdoing, are they doing so fraudulently?

Also most people don't even know they had it ( that's the point of the scandal isn't?) .

Very few complaints get upheld for that reason. Its an unprovable allegation. It cant work in your case anyway as you are not in a legal position to make such a claim.

The reason I suspect it may have been included in his loan is that at a certain period in time it was "routinely" added to many loans without the loanee fully understanding it

But you said it was a bridging loan. Not a personal loan.

i'm simply asking if it was during this period

Impossible to say. 1990 was early on in the period of PPI. The type of borrowing is not one that was commonly used with PPI (given its short term nature). So, if you are purely after odds, then you would have to guess they are low but you cant measure complaints by odds.

Crapwithmoney

I have to say i was expecting a slightly less aggressive response to a simple question ..
I doubt anybody is fraudulently claiming PPI, they, like me have been encouraged by (constant) phone calls from companies offering this service. I didn't know bridging loans didn't have PPI routinely attached, that was 1/2 of the point of my question (are you sure about this? It was a very large loan so probably easy to sell insurance, plus he was retired- the loan was whilst waiting for completition on one house before buying another)
Magpiecottage please turn down your aggression .... It's not nice..

dunstonh

I doubt anybody is fraudulently claiming PPI, they, like me have been encouraged by (constant) phone calls from companies offering this service.

It is a regulatory requirement for CMCs to check that PPI exists before reaming off a load of reasons why it was mis-sold. Being party to a fraud does not reduce your actions.

I didn't know bridging loans didn't have PPI routinely attached, that was 1/2 of the point of my question (are you sure about this? It was a very large loan so probably easy to sell insurance, plus he was retired- the loan was whilst waiting for completition on one house before buying another)

Yes I am sure about it. It could be added but was not routinely added. In the early 90s, I was a securities clerk for secured borrowing. Rarely saw any PPI on it. Mainly as you typically needed 6 months qualifying time to be eligible for PPI and most bridging loans were cleared within that time. Plus, you say he was retired. So, you wouldnt expect to see it.

I have to say i was expecting a slightly less aggressive response to a simple question ..

Its not aggressive in response. It is highlighting the issues. There is actually nothing wrong with PPI. Some forms of PPI are still retailed today (mostly to do with secured borrowing as it happens). The issue was about the sale of the product rather than the product. You neither know if the product existed or if it was mis-sold. That is why the responses have been as they have been.

Yes there could have been PPI. Yes it could have been mis-sold. Statistically, given the product and the fact he was retired, its unlikely. However, as you were not present you cannot make allegations. It would be reliant on facts. It would also need the executor of the estate to make the complaint.

Crapwithmoney

i'm not making allegations! ... There seems to be lots of companies that do all the work for you and apparently can establish "the facts".. if you listen to Martin Lewis he also encouraged people to check ... The aggression remark was mostly for magpiecottages "free money" snide comment ... Not what I'd expect from a compliant investigator!

Nasqueron

Crapwithmoney wrote: »

i'm not making allegations! ... There seems to be lots of companies that do all the work for you and apparently can establish "the facts".. if you listen to Martin Lewis he also encouraged people to check ... The aggression remark was mostly for magpiecottages "free money" snide comment ... Not what I'd expect from a compliant investigator!

The wording of "allegation" is a bit confusing for the layman.

With the PPI miss-selling scandal you as the complainant make an allegation of wrong doing i.e. that the product was sold to you but wasn't suitable/you were pressured into taking it/told you had to have it etc

The claims companies make a lot of grandiose statements but they cannot investigate anything for you, all they do is ask you for a list of every company you had a product with and send off scattergun complaints in the hope some will stick and they get their commission - they have no way of knowing what you had or the circumstances of sale as that is not in the public domain.

To the outsider, your case looks like a try it on as you don't know if the product was even in place yet you are already talking about getting compensation - that is the sort of "fraud" Dunstonh is talking about - putting in a complaint that you were miss-sold a product that you didn't even have is borderline fraudulent.

What you (or the executer of the estate) need to do is look through his paperwork and see what the loan was about and whether there is any confirmation there was PPI or not. If you do not have any records it is likely to be over before you start as 1990 is 25 years ago and banks commonly destroy data over 6 years old after the loan is closed.

You would also have to stick to factual complaints if you discover the PPI was present, you cannot make statements like "he was told he had to have it" as he is dead and you were not there at point of sale so you can't allege that was said.

dunstonh

i'm not making allegations! .

Surely that is what a complaint is?

There seems to be lots of companies that do all the work for you and apparently can establish "the facts"..

And the regulator for claims companies strikes companies off by the bucketload. The data about PPI is not in the public domain. So, how do they obtain this info? Most don't. They put in a try-it-on complaint.

f you listen to Martin Lewis he also encouraged people to check ..

Exactly. Check and then complain if there is reason to. Not the other way around.

ot what I'd expect from a compliant investigator!

I would imagine a complaints handler who has seen many fraudulent complaints triggered by claims companies and people trying it on would become a little jaded towards those they see as generating a complaint rather than having a complaint.

societys_child

Crapwithmoney wrote: »

i'm not making allegations! ...

Yes you are, a complaint is an accusation of wrong doing.

There seems to be lots of companies that do all the work for you

You can fill in the free complaint form (available everywhere) and post it yourself or fill in the almost identical form the CMC sends you and let them post it for you. They charge a huge amount for this "service"

and apparently can establish "the facts"..

They have no magical powers, "the facts" are, you still have to provide all the details, personal financial data (other than any you provide) is not available to them (not legally anyway . . .).