Lloyds not giving final response until FCA release new guidance

Lunatic_Flea

My Wife has made a claim for PPI against Lloyds for some loans several years ago. Main points being it was never fully explained to her and was told she needed to take this out for her to be given the loan. She also had a separate critical illness policy, entitled to 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay from her employer, she also is entitled to death in service payment etc. None of these were used of her. She made a claim a few weeks ago and received a letter today saying they are not currently in a position to provide her with a final response in relation to her complaint. The FCA has indicated it will implement additional rules and guidance for firms on how they should access certain categories of complaints where the level of commission on the PPI policy was not disclosed. I understand that your complaint is likely to fall within one of those categories.

Basically they are saying they want to wait until this comes out before making a final decision and this should be towards the end of 2016. They say based on the information currently available to them they do not believe your PPI policy was misold. However when the FCA release further guidance they will consider the complaint again.

Has anyone else received this from Lloyds or any other lenders?

dunstonh

She made a claim a few weeks ago and received a letter today saying they are not currently in a position to provide her with a final response in relation to her complaint. The FCA has indicated it will implement additional rules and guidance for firms on how they should access certain categories of complaints where the level of commission on the PPI policy was not disclosed. I understand that your complaint is likely to fall within one of those categories.

This effectively means the complaint is being rejected but could be subject to Plevin ruling (which the FCA have issued draft guidance on but is pending final publication). An upheld complaint is not affected by the FCA guidance. Only rejected complaints.

CI cover and death in service do not overlap with PPI. Sickness benefits can do with some types of PPI but not all types (loan PPI often sees complaints successful with 12 months sick pay but MPPI usually sees a rejection - even by the FOS).

Has anyone else received this from Lloyds or any other lenders?

Yes. Most loan PPI complaints being rejected at this time are getting it. Not seeing is much on credit card PPI or at all on monthly premium MPPI (and you wouldnt expect to).

Lunatic_Flea

I made a claim against Lloyds a few years ago stating the same sickness pay benefit and the same Critical illness policy as it is joint and i was successful. She was unhappy with the PPI policy because (1) They did not make her aware of the main features or benefits of the policy (2) They did not explain the optional nature of the PPI policy (3) She was more or less told that if she did not take out PPI she would not be given the loan.
She is also very unhappy that in their finding he states that "He believe it to be more likely than not, that the policy features and limitations were verbally explained to her, in good time before the sale was concluded"
This was not and they have no evidence to say to was and lets be honest about it PPI has widely been misold in various ways including not having it fully explained. Basically calling her a liar

dunstonh

I made a claim against Lloyds a few years ago stating the same sickness pay benefit and the same Critical illness policy as it is joint and i was successful.

Doesnt mean the complaint was successful because there was a CIC policy. Indeed, following the regulated advice process, someone would be expected to have PPI, CIC and PHI as the ideal scenario (assuming no existing plans or benefits exist). CIC has no overlap.

he was unhappy with the PPI policy because (1) They did not make her aware of the main features or benefits of the policy (2) They did not explain the optional nature of the PPI policy (3) She was more or less told that if she did not take out PPI she would not be given the loan.

A very weak complaint then as no evidence exists to support all three of the allegations made.

She is also very unhappy that in their finding he states that "He believe it to be more likely than not, that the policy features and limitations were verbally explained to her, in good time before the sale was concluded"
This was not and they have no evidence to say to was and lets be honest about it PPI has widely been misold in various ways including not having it fully explained. Basically calling her a liar

She is the one making the allegation. Not them. They are saying that they cant see any evidence of wrongdoing on their files. This doesnt mean there was no wrongdoing. Just that no evidence available to them indicates a wrongdoing. Whilst some PPi has been mis-sold, some has not. Some types of PPI actually have the majority of complaints rejected whilst other types have the majority upheld. And then you get the autopayouts which payout even where there is no wrongdoing. This is why each case is looked at on its own merits.

Remember she is accusing them of telling lies (amongst other things).

Think of it this way... I accuse her of taking £20 from my wallet. Her method would require her to pay me the £20 even if there is no evidence to support my allegation. That isn't how UK law works. There has to be a balance of probability of a wrongdoing and the reasons given rarely work by themselves. They need another failing to have been identified and that doesnt appear to have happened so far.

Lunatic_Flea

One could say there is more a probability of wrong doing having so many millions/billions paid out due to wrongful selling including pressure from the individual selling the PPI. I guess she has the option to take it further.

dunstonh

Lunatic_Flea wrote: »

One could say there is more a probability of wrong doing having so many millions/billions paid out due to wrongful selling including pressure from the individual selling the PPI. I guess she has the option to take it further.

Why would one say that?

You will have sellers out there who have never sold a single bad policy. You will have others that routinely mis-sold. Why should the innocent have to pay out because of the guilty?

If we go down that route, then we may as well profile everybody on statistics and make them guilty of something they have not done.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. Most loan PPI complaints being rejected at this time are getting it. Not seeing is much on credit card PPI or at all on monthly premium MPPI (and you wouldnt expect to).

The Plevin ruling affects credit cards and mortgages as much as it does loans.

dunstonh

WatchMan wrote: »

The Plevin ruling affects credit cards and mortgages as much as it does loans.

Not really. It applies to those things but whilst most loan PPI would fall foul of the plevin ruling, it is less an issue with most credit card PPI and it wont be an issue with the vast majority of MPPI (commissions on MPPI were typically 25-35% - well below the plevin limit). Secured loans with single premium PPI would nearly always fall foul. Most of the premium was commission rather disgracefully.

WatchMan

dunstonh wrote: »

Not really. It applies to those things but whilst most loan PPI would fall foul of the plevin ruling, it is less an issue with most credit card PPI and it wont be an issue with the vast majority of MPPI (commissions on MPPI were typically 25-35% - well below the plevin limit). Secured loans with single premium PPI would nearly always fall foul. Most of the premium was commission rather disgracefully.

Sorry I wasn't clear.

Plevin affects cards and MPPI in the same way so far as banks, and the FOS are not giving final answers on affected cases at the moment.

Whether Plevin results in a 'favourable' outcome will (most likely) be much less uniform between product types.

dunstonh

Roger that Watchman.

Lunatic_Flea

I said that as they made it sound as if they were 100% confident she was told everything about the PPI policy when i was pointing out there was a good chance they did not as one i believe my Wife and two there was so many mis-sold policies. Nothing to do with Innocent paying for the guilty. I understand onus is on buyer to prove they were not informed of all parts of the policy etc but it is a fact there was an horrendous amount of policies mis-sold for various reasons of which one was not even being told what a PPI entailed.