PPI eligibility advice

Lsk123alarm

Advice please. I have no paperwork but banked with Lloyd's for 30 years. Wrote to them a few weeks ago and said remember having loans and cards in late 90s to 2006 unsure if had PPI. I get excellent benefits from work 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay. Company's own income protection pays half pay up to 5 years after the 12 months. Death in service 6 times annual salary on pension and company accident policy which pays substantial payments. I sent all this in. I was a temp in the company for 5 years through an agency then permanent from October 1997. I got letter this week they are refunding me £3280 against loans so very happy with that! Had no contact from them for loans. Credit card totally different story had 2 phone calls asking loads of questions. Turns out I took the card and ppi out in December 1997 and paid on it until august 2004. This week I had letter refusing payment on this. She says I was eligible for PPI as I was working and I only had 'limited' company benefits! I sent same paperwork in for both. Heres my questions. If I had only been employed 2 months when I took it out would I have been able to claim PPI if I had lost my job? Furthermore as I paid on it for 7 years and my full company benefits would have kicked in a long time by then should I be eligible for partial refund as wouldn't have been able to claim? Is it worth me contacting the ombudsman? I don't want to appear greedy as obviously very happy with the one payout but can't get my head round why that just paid up no questions on loans and they won't on the card. I don't know dates of loans as they haven't given this info

[Deleted User]

No. Any changes in your circumstances would not make it retrospectively mis sold.

Browntoa

Seeing as the threshold for claiming on most policies was a minimum of 12 months employment i would say that you were misold

dunstonh

Whilst the FOS tends to reject complaints where there is 12 months sick pay on mortgage PPI, it tends to uphold it on PPI covering short term unsecured debts.

However, it is the position at point of sale that matters. Not the position at a later date.

Lsk123alarm

So I would say as I was only employed in a permanent position for 2 months at point of sale it was unlikely I could have claimed PPI due to eligibility threshold and I should take my complaint to ombudsman on that basis?

Insider101

Lsk123alarm wrote: »

So I would say as I was only employed in a permanent position for 2 months at point of sale it was unlikely I could have claimed PPI due to eligibility threshold and I should take my complaint to ombudsman on that basis?

I think you need to try and establish this before you go anywhere near the Ombudsman. Would suggest you ask for a copy of the policy terms and conditions since they are all different from one company to another. If the policy says that you needed to have been with your employer for at least a year then by all means go back and tell them that and ask the bank to reconsider accordingly. If they don't, then you can go to FOS. If the policy does not contain that limitation then at least you will know and can reconsider yourself.

There is nothing that looks worse to a complaint handler (be it a bank one or at FOS) than somebody complaining that they weren't covered by the policy because this, that, the other and then a copy of the policy terms and conditions is provided which confirms that they were covered. It just screams that you are just trying your luck because everyone else is and haven't even bothered to try and establish whether you do actually have grounds for complaint So do your research first.

Lsk123alarm

I have found a copy of Lloyd's tsb policy booklet on the internet. It appears a bit of a grey area now because it says you will not be covered by unemployment if you have not been continuously employed for a minimum of 16 hours a week for a minimum of 6 months at the time of the agreement. Underneath it says which immediately follows a period of casual or temporary work.
So at December 1997 I HAD been continuously employed for 16 hours a week for minimum 6 months BUT only 2 months of it were in a permanent capacity and the other 4 months were with the same company but on a temporary basis through an agency.
How do I stand with this? Advice appreciated.

dunstonh

It appears a bit of a grey area now because it says you will not be covered by unemployment if you have not been continuously employed for a minimum of 16 hours a week for a minimum of 6 months at the time of the agreement.

This would not prevent a sale with you being employed for just 2 months as the qualifying period would have to be met after 6 months whether you started it on day 1 or months later.

Lsk123alarm

Sorry I don't understand, I thought everyone was saying its the point of sale situation that matters?

dunstonh

Lsk123alarm wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand, I thought everyone was saying its the point of sale situation that matters?

It is what matters. However, if you start a job with say 3 months probation and the PPI has 6 months qualification period then you would not be covered for the new job from the day you start. You have 6 months before the PPI covers you.

If you delayed the PPI purchase until after probation period, you would then be in the job 9 months before the PPI would cover you. So, it is quite acceptable to have overlapping periods of non-qualification to allow the cover period to start as soon as possible.

There can also be "lucky" consequence. i.e. had you left that job to go elsewhere, your complaint could be upheld. As you stayed there, the PPI provider gets lucky and can use that as part of the qualifying period.

If the PPI provider says you would not have been covered then they would uphold your complaint. If the PPI provider says that you would have been covered then that would be accepted by the FOS. You cannot argue that point by saying you are not covered when the provider says you were.

Lsk123alarm

So basically the best thing to do is ask Lloyds to reconsider on the above basis and see what they say?