We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Rejecting by Ombudsman Investigator - Advice please
Comments
-
These were their complaint reasons, which are mostly unprovablemiffythesmartbunny wrote: »He didn't need PPI and we believe it was missold for the following reasons:
- the policy was heavily impressed on him
- he’d explained that he was financially secure and wouldn’t benefit from the policy but was told it was part of the loan
- the policy wasn’t suitable for him as he had savings, life insurance and a permanent employment with sick pay
- the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement
Single premium as a complaint reason isn't in there at all.Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
I'm not sure why you are going over ground already covered by the thread?
Single premium as a complaint reason isn't in there at all.
No one indicated that the OP had complained about Single Premium.
What has been established was that the Bank upheld the complaint because they identified and offered redress on the basis of Single Premium. The OP was not content with this (probably because their own reasons were rejected) and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman adjudicator agreed with the Bank's offer of redress.
In recent times, Single Premium has not been the surefire guarantee of a full refund plus interest that it once was. While certainly a valid mis-selling reason, there have been numerous examples of Banks awarding only the difference in cost between Single Premium and regular monthly. This is where the insurance is identified as being otherwise valid and potentially useful.
I suppose the OP might be persuaded to appeal the paucity of redress awarded and demand full redress on the basis of Single Premium, but that's another argument entirely.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »I'm not sure why you are going over ground already covered by the thread?
No one indicated that the OP had complained about Single Premium.
That was my bad, I thought as they said the bank had upheld the single premium bit and the OP said "the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement" that meant they had complained about single premium directlySam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Yup, your/you're bad.....
See what I did there?
Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards