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.
Advise on PPI claim
Comments
-
Thank you for your reply.
RCI have stated that because the loan was prior to 2005 they will be the ones dealing with it as it is there responsibility.
They have a copy of my loan agreement but now want bank statements confirming the premium was paid.
I have contacted my bank and they don't go that far back.
Do you have any ideas what I can do?0 -
-
Thank you for your reply.
RCI have stated that because the loan was prior to 2005 they will be the ones dealing with it as it is there responsibility.
They have a copy of my loan agreement but now want bank statements confirming the premium was paid.
I have contacted my bank and they don't go that far back.
Do you have any ideas what I can do?
If your account is still with the same bank you'll probably have to risk £10 on a DSAR (request for all the data they hold on you) and see if their older records turn anything up - I'd suspect the PPI was probably included in the car finance so you'll not see 2 payments going out but it's worth a gambleSam 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 -
Thank you for your reply.
Yes your right. On the loan agreement it saysvit will just show as one whole payment.0 -
Thank you for your reply.
Yes your right. On the loan agreement it saysvit will just show as one whole payment.
Single premium PPI, instant miss-sale were it not for the pre-regulation.
See what the bank can turn up, if you can prove you paid it and the finance company are willing to look at it you may get a refundSam 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 -
I know, I knowMoneyineptitude wrote: »To be fair, they decided that it was more than a "bit naughty" and financial institutions were prohibited from using this patently unfair practice.
but as is often said, people should read what their agreeing to . .
I wasn't suggesting people were slow witted, but that the regulators appeared to think they were . . .It was little to do with customers being "slow-witted" and more to do with the fact that it was easily missed by anyone.
Yeah, probably, but c'mon, even I noticed itBeing required to opt in is always fairer than having to opt out.
all those years ago . . . and I'd left Grammar school and was working at 15, so probably not particularly well educated . . . 
Edit: What's going on? Having to negotiate 'captures' almost every time I post.0 -
societys_child wrote: »
Edit: What's going on? Having to negotiate 'captures' almost every time I post.
I got that with a big post with lots of code quoting on this topic, only one I have seen it on thoughSam 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 -
societys_child wrote: »What's going on? Having to negotiate 'captures' almost every time I post.I got that with a big post with lots of code quoting on this topic, only one I have seen it on though
No problems here....0 -
Hi,
Question I had three loans about ten years ago with welcome finance, two of which were paid off in full. The third has always been disputed, they say I still owe them money, but I disagree. I went through a claims company to see if I had insurance on the three loans. The one which they say is outstanding did but they said they were applying the money to the outstanding balance. I haven't signed any acceptance offer. The other two they have just written to me about and have said that there was ppi on these too - 1800 but they are going to put this amount towards the other loan that they say is still outstanding. Are they allowed to do this? I would have that because they are separate that they couldn't and I don't trust that company one bit.0 -
They have the right of off-set against any monies you still owe them.
You obviously don't have to sign your agreement to this "offer" in order for it to be enacted.
In addition, you can expect the Claim Company to still want their fee even though you are getting nothing personally.
You really should have let sleeping dogs lie here.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards