Plevin & PPI

Agricolae

dunstonh wrote: »

The FCA issued its consultation nearly a year ago and its final ruling more recently was virtually unchanged from the initial proposals. So, information is not an issue.

Just ask them to look at your case under the recent Plevin ruling from the FCA. A simple single sentence. Dont mention profit share as that is not something that applies here and not something you need to worry about.

According to the FCA paper profit share on MPPI almost certainly will matter due to its low commission and high profit share nature. They don't need to mention it as hopefully the bank will consider it together with a commission complaint, but I don't think we can say it's irrelevant.

dunstonh

Agricolae wrote: »

According to the FCA paper profit share on MPPI almost certainly will matter due to its low commission and high profit share nature. They don't need to mention it as hopefully the bank will consider it together with a commission complaint, but I don't think we can say it's irrelevant.

It doesnt matter to the person making the complaint. It isnt something they need to raise. They just need to ask for it to be looked at under the Plevin ruling.

puglover_3

Morning - An update for you. I contacted Nationwide and they have said that they will not investigate any Plevin ruling issue until August 2017. I then spoke to FOS who have said that as my MPPI only ran up to 2005 that Plevin would not be considered on this claim. They have said that they will only look at any MPPI Plevin issue if the MPPI ran past 2008.

Thought this may be of interest to you, any comments appreciated

dunstonh

The 2008 part of the ruling is going to significantly reduce the volume of payouts on this.

Nasqueron

Broke1967 wrote: »

Does anyone know if I can start a fresh mis-selling claim based on the Plevin case?
My claim was rejected due to time barring by Santander, however, they are still looking into it on the basis of Plevin.
My understanding is that you only get one refund. The recent post on MSE states (On a £10,000 loan over five years, your 'Plevin' compensation would typically be £500 (if you're due all the PPI back for other mis-selling, you don't get both). that you only get one, but, this would appear to be unfair if you are rejected for getting PPI refund of thousands, and can only claim hundreds based on the Plevin based refunds. Surely mis-selling is mis-selling which ever form it takes, why should one refund path lead to thousands, and, another path lead to hundreds?

This is a misunderstanding of how things work.

PPI miss-selling means you should get a refund of anything you paid as part of that PPI (plus any interest that is applicable)

The Plevin ruling is NOT miss-selling, it's an undeclared commission. Indeed, the whole point is that people affected were NOT miss-sold i.e. PPI was sold correctly, they were just poorly treated by the advisor. The issue with Plevin is not even about commission - it's about EXCESSIVE commission - any commission under 50% was perfectly fine and there is no issue with it at all. Plevin only applies in cases where there was more than 50% and so you get back the amount over 50%

Gig1968

Haven't been on for a while . I've been looking all around for answers to a frustrating question I have.
I made a ppl claim against MBNA that was timebarred as it relates to 2010. I understand thats true and that's my fault.

I have read many articles in the newspapers but it fails to say how far back that Plevin applies too.

I just accessed MBNA site where it talks about Plevin.

Does anyone know what date Plevin is backdated too

dunstonh

Gig1968 wrote: »

Haven't been on for a while . I've been looking all around for answers to a frustrating question I have.
I made a ppl claim against MBNA that was timebarred as it relates to 2010. I understand thats true and that's my fault.

I have read many articles in the newspapers but it fails to say how far back that Plevin applies too.

I just accessed MBNA site where it talks about Plevin.

Does anyone know what date Plevin is backdated too

As the MBNA site says, they will be automatically going back to people with rejected complaints to see if Plevin applies. You do not need to do anything.

Gig1968

Thanks for the reply. I contacted MBNA and their reaction was that any complaint I made would be timebarred

Natsu

Sorry but could someone please clarify whether we have legitimat course of action to take in our situation. My partner was told by RBS in 1999 that the only way he could get a loan was if he took out some sort of specialised insurance (but he didn't understand what it was just knew that he could not get the loan without it). He didn't have any paperwork and fought the coldcalls for years. In late 2011 to early 2012, somone convinced him to put in a claim. RBS denied they had any information that he had PPI through them. He was adamant that he did have it, and we found out that he did have PPI but it was with a Broker (whose name we can not find at the moment. I think maybe the Mortgage Company). In the end he was denied and was told that because the Brokers were not regulated at that time, he would likely be unsuccessful but they wanted him to complain to the Ombudsman anyway. He was going to but as this situation occurred, myself and the children became very ill for 4 months. He then developed Pneumonia and was still recovering almost 6 months later. He missed the deadline to complain and was a bit disappointed but thought, he wasn't going to get anything anyway.

My questions are: 1. He was still mis-sold it, RBS told him he must have it. It was the only way he could get the mortgage. If not directly through them then through somone they approved of. RBS gave him info on the Broker company and Broker did not tell him anything about the PPI. It was very much, the hoops you must go through to get the mortgage otherwise you will not get it. But because the broker's were unregulated this was all legitimate so can not constitute 'miss-selling' because he didn't video record the RBS or Broker guy? Becuase that is what it comes down to is a he/she said scenario.

2. Would he have a claim through Plevin (eventhough Plevin is not an 'mis-selling' issue)?

3. Does he need to contact the Ombudsman first to determine whether he can restart a claim for Plevin? (If he is eligible to go that route).

4. We have recently moved and because we purged our old stuff and some paperwork, we no longer have the letter indicating that he had some payment protection plan through the Broker. I discovered another piece of paper that points to his association with The Mortgage Company but its not the original letter we used to prove to RBS that PPI was taken out. Is that going to be a problem if we can claim through Plevin? He does have information regarding Payment Protection Pamphlet from PaymentProtect. But its just a pamphlet, although he wouldn't have kept it if it wasn't significant.

Sorry for the long windedness but I've read so much that I've gotten lost and want to make sure that I have understood what I have read.
Thank you

dunstonh

RBS denied they had any information that he had PPI through them.

Which is correct if a broker was used,

In the end he was denied and was told that because the Brokers were not regulated at that time, he would likely be unsuccessful but they wanted him to complain to the Ombudsman anyway.

The ombudsman cannot look at pre-regulation complaints. So, whoever told him that was wrong.

1. He was still mis-sold it, RBS told him he must have it. It was the only way he could get the mortgage. If not directly through them then through somone they approved of. RBS gave him info on the Broker company and Broker did not tell him anything about the PPI. It was very much, the hoops you must go through to get the mortgage otherwise you will not get it. But because the broker's were unregulated this was all legitimate so can not constitute 'miss-selling' because he didn't video record the RBS or Broker guy? Becuase that is what it comes down to is a he/she said scenario.

1 - Broker was used. So, the lender has no liability for the complaint.
2 - Broker was not regulated - so they do not have to consider the complaint
3 - Brokers are allowed to insist on insurance as part of their arrangement to give free mortgage advice. The only requirement is that the insurance is suitable. This model is used frequently with estate agents in particular.

2. Would he have a claim through Plevin (eventhough Plevin is not an 'mis-selling' issue)?

Plevin qont apply as your complaint has not been rejected and the mortgage isnt covered under the consumer credit act and not linked to the debt. Plus MPPI commission was typically around 20-35%.

3. Does he need to contact the Ombudsman first to determine whether he can restart a claim for Plevin? (If he is eligible to go that route).

He has no access to the FOS.

4. We have recently moved and because we purged our old stuff and some paperwork, we no longer have the letter indicating that he had some payment protection plan through the Broker. I discovered another piece of paper that points to his association with The Mortgage Company but its not the original letter we used to prove to RBS that PPI was taken out. Is that going to be a problem if we can claim through Plevin? He does have information regarding Payment Protection Pamphlet from PaymentProtect. But its just a pamphlet, although he wouldn't have kept it if it wasn't significant.

If the lender did say it was compulsory, then it would not be missold anyway. However, that is not the problem as you have no-one to complain to.