Reclaiming miss sold PPI on refinanced loans

Placida

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

If the money you did pay exceeds the amount you didn't, then the difference will be paid to you if your mis-selling complaint is successful. Otherwise, you stand to gain nothing.
It really is that simple.

While the bank might say that they had an “equitable right in law” to set off money they owe someone against money that person owes them, the FOS might not consider that the arrears on the OP’s final loan and overdrawn current account are “closely connected” to any redress he would be owed if his complaints about the mis sale of PPI on his previous successive loans were to be upheld.

See here
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/118/118-payment-protection.html#cs7

Nasqueron

Placida wrote: »

While the bank might say that they had an “equitable right in law” to set off money they owe someone against money that person owes them, the FOS might not consider that the arrears on the OP’s final loan and overdrawn current account are “closely connected” to any redress he would be owed if his complaints about the mis sale of PPI on his previous successive loans were to be upheld.

See here
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/118/118-payment-protection.html#cs7

If all 8 loans were taken out one after another to pay off each previous loan and the eighth simply didn't have PPI unlike the others and the last one was defaulted and money written off then the FOS will follow their guidelines on offsetting. Your case example wouldn't apply here as it appears all the loans were connected and were not unrelated loans unless the OP can confirm each loan was independent and paid back in full and only the last one without PPI was defaulted - the fact he had 8 loans in a period of 7 years rather suggests they were concurrent.

It would be an obviously obscene judgement for someone to not pay back loans then claim PPI and get a payout of that money

Placida

Nasqueron wrote: »

If all 8 loans were taken out one after another to pay off each previous loan and the eighth simply didn't have PPI unlike the others and the last one was defaulted and money written off then the FOS will follow their guidelines on offsetting.

That is correct.

Nasqueron wrote: »

Your case example wouldn't apply here as it appears all the loans were connected and were not unrelated loans unless the OP can confirm each loan was independent and paid back in full and only the last one without PPI was defaulted -

Not sure what you mean by the above?
Do you mean the OP’s loans had been successive sales?

Definition of a refinanced loan; Paying off an existing loan with the proceeds from a new loan.
Therefore no need to confirm each loan was independent and paid back in full?

As the OP had refinanced each loan with a new loan, his outstanding debt would have become new borrowing under a new loan agreement.
Any redress that NatWest might owe if his complaint was successful would be connected to loans on which PPI had been mis-sold – which no longer exist. This PPI redress isn’t connected to the debt OP owes NatWest under the final and separate loan agreement (without PPI) or his current account.

As in the FOS decision I posted:

“But we didn’t agree that the arrears on Mrs L’s fourth loan were closely connected to the redress they owed her. In our view, each time Mrs L had refinanced, her outstanding debt had become new borrowing under a new loan agreement. The redress that the business owed Mrs L was connected to the three loans on which PPI had been mis-sold – which no longer existed. The redress wasn’t connected to the debt Mrs L now owed the business – under a fourth and separate loan agreement.”

Nasqueron wrote: »

the fact he had 8 loans in a period of 7 years rather suggests they were concurrent.

Definition of “concurrent”: happening at the same time.
Thread title “Reclaiming miss sold PPI on refinanced loans” and the phrases “taking the last loan out”, “previous ones”, “recent loan in 2006 “rather suggest they weren’t concurrent but successive?

Also regarding OP’s question as to whether NatWest could use any redress if he was successful in his PPI complaint towards reducing the arrears on his current account:

“Our adjudicator wrote to NatWest partly upholding Mrs M’s complaint. In his letter the adjudicator said that NatWest shouldn’t have used the compensation from the PPI sold with loan one to reduce arrears on the current account. This was because the PPI policy wasn’t connected with the current account.”

Nasqueron wrote: »

It would be an obviously obscene judgement for someone to not pay back loans then claim PPI and get a payout of that money

You are entitled to your opinion.

Nasqueron

Your case study refers to the following scenario:

Mrs L had loans with PPI
PPI was miss-sold
PPI refund was partially offset against arrears on a current loan
The FOS ruled as all the loans were independent successive sales, the fourth loan couldn't have the money offset

The OP has had 8 loans in 7 years, clearly refinanced and thus are associated

So please do tell how the case study applies to the OP

Placida

Nasqueron wrote: »

Your case study refers to the following scenario:

I quoted from 2 different case studies-I did not provide the link for the second. I think you have confused them.

Nasqueron wrote: »

Mrs L had loans with PPI

That is correct. She had a chain of 4 loans each one refinancing the previous one. Final loan (in arrears) did not have a PPI policy. OP had a chain of 8 loans-each one refinancing the previous one. Final loan (in arrears) did not have a PPI policy?

Nasqueron wrote: »

PPI was miss-sold

That is correct. A payment protection policy was mis sold on each of the loans taken out except her final loan which did not have a PPI policy. I.E. did not have PPI policy associated( or related to) with it.

Nasqueron wrote: »

PPI refund was partially offset against arrears on a current loan

I cannot find where it says this in the case study you refer to?
Which of the PPI refunds do you believe was” partially offset against arrears on a current loan” in the case study?

I think you are confusing my quote from the second case study-perhaps I should have provided the link to have avoided this.

Nasqueron wrote: »

The FOS ruled as all the loans were independent successive sales, the fourth loan couldn't have the money offset

Agreed- the bank wished to use some of the redress from the loans that had PPI to reduce the debt on the final loan which did not have PPI? The bank said they were entitled to reduce Mrs L’s debts in this way because they had “right of set-off”?
The FOS decided that Mrs L should have all the redress paid to her as, even though Mrs L’s fourth loan was in arrears, as that particular account wasn’t associated with any of the mis-sold PPI policies? I.E. There was no redress associated with the final loan account apart from residual PPI perhaps?

Nasqueron wrote: »

The OP has had 8 loans in 7 years, clearly refinanced and thus are associated

True the OP has had a different number of refinanced loans in a different time frame but I'm not sure what your point is?

I thought you said in your previous post
“the fact he had 8 loans in a period of 7 years rather suggests they were concurrent.”
Not refinanced? Do you no longer think this?

What factor(s) in a chain of the OP's 8 loans in 7 years leads you to believe they were associated?
They weren’t associated by PPI other than all but the final loan had a policy although there could be residual PPI not only in successive loans but also in the final loan.

Nasqueron wrote: »

So please do tell how the case study applies to the OP

As previously stated, if the OP was successful in his complaint, then the FOS would expect the Bank to follow their guidelines on offsetting as in the case study.

The OP has also taken out a chain of loans one after another to pay off each previous loan (successive or refinanced not concurrent), and all but his final loan also had a PPI policy associated with them and he is also in arrears with his final account.

As there isn’t any PPI policy associated with this final loan, there is no PPI redress to be refunded from this loan if the OP was to be successful in his complaint.

Incidentally, what is your understanding on whether the bank should be allowed offset any potential redress from complaining about the mis sale of PPI on the OP’s loans to reducing the arrears on his current account. Is it still the same?

What knowledge and understanding do you have of refinancing loans and their credit agreements?

Do you have any personal experience/awareness of receiving redress from a successful complaint about PPI mis sold in a chain of loans (some or the final one not having PPI attached) and how a financial firm would calculate that redress (including residual PPI) and explain to the customer those calculations?

Are you familiar with the actual terminology/layout used in the relevant documentation when a bank upholds a PPI complaint and makes an offer of redress?

Nasqueron wrote: »

It would be an obviously obscene judgement for someone to not pay back loans then claim PPI and get a payout of that money

I think perhaps your strong opinions on consumers receiving redress for mis sold PPI when they may have other debts not associated with those loans may cloud your judgement.