Been Offered Compensation. Is it Enough?

PSW

Either I've understood incorrectly what I've read or there is some misinformation on this thread, no doubt the former but can I clarify so that I'm not naively believing something that is incorrect.

Firstly, if a debt has been "sold" I thought the bank were not able to offset

Secondly, is this legally correct "That works in reverse too. It cannot be chased by a borrower who failed to repay either." ? Whether it's morally correct to chase a debt that you haven't paid is another question.

-taff

They aren't supposed ot pay the thrid party if the debt has truly been sold on, but I think they can still keep any amounts for written off or defaulted on.
Again, we don't know whether it's been truly sold, or outsourced, and still don't know the circumstances or time lime behind the sale, default of the card.

Nasqueron

PSW wrote: »

Either I've understood incorrectly what I've read or there is some misinformation on this thread, no doubt the former but can I clarify so that I'm not naively believing something that is incorrect.

Firstly, if a debt has been "sold" I thought the bank were not able to offset

Secondly, is this legally correct "That works in reverse too. It cannot be chased by a borrower who failed to repay either." ? Whether it's morally correct to chase a debt that you haven't paid is another question.

If the debt has been 100% sold on with no way for the bank to get the debt back, yes they are not allowed to offset. If the bank simply used a third party debt agency to chase and still have the debt or can call it back from the debt collectors, they are allowed to.

A borrower who did not pay their debts could certainly put in a complaint if they make such a moral decision but in some circumstances they cannot (e.g. bankrupts can't) and shouldn't expect to get any money so if they do it's a nice surprise

Nasqueron

Agricolae wrote: »

I think ultimately the best thing to do in this scenario may be to ask them to provide their calculations.

The figure they've gone with is somewhat bizarre considering the situation with the account (unless, as has been said, you defaulted on it quickly and the PPI was cancelled).

Edit: Overlimit fees could, theoretically, be caused by the monthly PPI premium being posted to the account. I would have thought the reasonable thing for a bank to do would be to look at each month and if the account went overlimit by less than the PPI premium charged that month, the overlimit fee is refunded.

The over limit fees would 99.999% be caused by the borrower not paying their debts, PPI is such a small amount (typically 70-80p per £100 of debt) it would take an extremely specific set of circumstances for the PPI charge to be the reason why they went over.

Nasqueron

-taff wrote: »

Interest of 8% is only given if the card would have been in credit if the PPI payments and interest added on those would have put your card in credit.

Yes this was my mistake, it's because some firms choose to add the 8% regardless but the FOS indeed only require the interest on credit balances

[Deleted User]

PSW wrote: »

Secondly, is this legally correct "That works in reverse too. It cannot be chased by a borrower who failed to repay either." ? Whether it's morally correct to chase a debt that you haven't paid is another question.

My point was that although debts are "sold on", Banks generally keep the debt "in house" by selling to a subsidiary. I know HSBC definitely do this.
In such circumstances a borrower who failed to repay in full would be denied PPI redress by virtue of Offset.

Nasqueron wrote: »

A borrower who did not pay their debts could certainly put in a complaint if they make such a moral decision

I don't think it can be described as a "moral" decision.

Nasqueron

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I don't think it can be described as a "moral" decision.

Moral as an adjective means "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour."

Whether your morals are good or bad would determine whether you saw this as immoral or not. Just playing with words to avoid the MSE moderators stepping in

jaysan

Thanks for all the responses but I feel more confused than ever. Would I be wise to ask for a disclosure thingy to find out what information they hold on me and get an explanation of how the amount was calculated.

Also if I had PPI and was not aware of it and while I had it did not use it even though I became unemployed and thus debt became more because I could no longer pay it then is there some other form of redress I can claim.

Finally could I pass this to a claims management company to fight the case even though they will take X% from it.

I feel as a none legal individual I am being bamboozalled with legaleeze

Thanks

Agricolae

jaysan wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses but I feel more confused than ever. Would I be wise to ask for a disclosure thingy to find out what information they hold on me and get an explanation of how the amount was calculated.

Also if I had PPI and was not aware of it and while I had it did not use it even though I became unemployed and thus debt became more because I could no longer pay it then is there some other form of redress I can claim.

Finally could I pass this to a claims management company to fight the case even though they will take X% from it.

I feel as a none legal individual I am being bamboozalled with legaleeze

Thanks

Sorry if we've caused you any confusion. It's probably because we don't have much information to go on - not that that's your fault.

I do think asking the bank to clarify how they've reached that figure would be step one here. This will probably clear up the question of whether what they're offering is just "leftovers" once your old debt to them has been paid.

I'd personally not advise you to use a CMC. You can go to FOS yourself for free and if the CMC doesn't get anywhere with the bank your complaint will just end up in a queue at FOS anyway.

You've said you could have made a claim on the PPI because you became unemployed, but because you didn't know you had it, you didn't claim. If the PPI was mis-sold then you get back what you paid for it, not what you would have got had you claimed on it, if that makes sense. I suppose theoretically you could get either/or, but what you certainly couldn't do is get back all the money you paid for the PPI and any money you'd have got for making a claim for unemployment on the policy.

[Deleted User]

Agricolae wrote: »

I suppose theoretically you could get either/or

Since PPI redress is defined, there is no either or situation here. If the PPI is deemed mis-sold, the OP will receive a full refund of the premium paid plus 8% simple interest. No more no less.

The question is whether the amount left unpaid by the default has been offset from the redress resulting in redress of only £274.