Plevined by Alliance & Leicester?

Applelady

Hi I have only ever had 2 accounts where PPI could have been applied, a Littlewoods catalogue & an Alliance & Leicester credit card. I wasnt mis-sold, i took both out in full knowledge & it was appropriate for me. I even tried to claim on the A & L card when i lost my job to illness but they wriggled out of paying on a technicality.
But although i wasnt mis sold i did always feel it was a lot i was being charged on both, so i think the new Plevin rule might apply to me. But i have no paperwork for either as the accounts are about 10yrs old & of course Alliance & Leicester bank was bought & subsumed into Santander.... So does anyone know if there is any way for me to claim the Plevin amount back?

Is Santander dealing with A&L PPI claims or are their customers out of luck now it's Santander?

any insight much appreciated

[Deleted User]

Applelady wrote: »

they wriggled out of paying on a technicality.

Is a technicality the same as a policy criterion?

dunstonh

when i lost my job to illness but they wriggled out of paying on a technicality.

Insurance payouts are not decided by technicalities. They are set by rules and criteria. If you dont meet that criteria then you dont get paid out. No wriggling out or technicalities.

But although i wasnt mis sold i did always feel it was a lot i was being charged on both, so i think the new Plevin rule might apply to me.

Plevin may apply. However, don't get your hopes up. Card PPI commission is typically around the 50% mark. They only have to refund the figure above 50%. We have only seen one Plevin payout so far on the forums and that was for a credit card and it was under 50%. So no payout.

So does anyone know if there is any way for me to claim the Plevin amount back?

You make your complaint to Santander.

Applelady

thank you for your reply dunstonh.

You are right.... 'wriggled out on a technicality' wasn't the best wording for me to have used as it isnt strictly accurate in describing the facts, i was merely paraphrasing my thoughts on the matter.

There is a rule that it wont pay out for 'pre existing conditions'. It's supposed to be the rules that govern the decision, but imagine if you had the flu with a headache & then 2 yrs later got a brain tumor, both causing headaches - would the flu be a 'pre existing condition' if you claimed for the disability caused by said tumour, simply because both conditions caused the same symptom of a 'headache'?! Clearly not, & to my mind that is an attempt to 'wriggle out of paying'.

Petplan tried to do a similar thing when i claimed for my pet last year, when I had to get 2 extra vets letters spelling out that long term arthritic back ache cannot be considered to be a 'pre existing condition' for a newly developed neurological condition which caused seizure related collapse of the back legs & difficulty walking, simply because both conditions cause problems with mobility.
It took time & hassle but eventually Petplan agreed that they were wrong & are paying out for the ongoing treatment.

I should have done the same with doctors letters to the PPI company yrs ago but i was still very ill & vulnerable when i finally got out of hospital & was trying to sort out my affairs, & i had no practical support so i just couldn't face the fight with them. I was very lucky that a relative ended up paying the debt for me just to get it off my plate so that's where it ended, but i am still irritated that they got away with a misapplication of policy criteria because i was too ill to fight them on it - hence my 'wriggling out of it' comment.

You are of course correct that "Insurance payouts are not decided by technicalities. They are set by rules and criteria. If you dont meet that criteria then you dont get paid out. No wriggling out or technicalities".
But that is how it's supposed to work in theory. In practice how they attempt to apply said rules/criteria is not always accurate or lawful, & they get away with it because the very nature of insurance related to illness/disability involves claimants that are, as i was, too ill to fight them & prove that they do fit the criteria. You only have to explore the debacle with Unum in America to see that they dont always follow the rules.


Anyway many thanks for your time & advice & I will try my luck with Santander. Even if it's only a small amount its worth it to me.
I'll come back & comment here if i have any success in case it might help someone else.

cheers

Applelady

Deleted_User wrote: »

Is a technicality the same as a policy criterion?

See my explanation above.

The_Bookman

"Insurance payouts are not decided by technicalities. They are set by rules and criteria. If you dont meet that criteria then you dont get paid out. No wriggling out or technicalities. "

Forgive me, but I'm unconvinced that is strictly true, or at least, it may depend on the company involved hoping that the customer's knowledge is inadequate.

A travel insurance company tried to deny a claim of mine for a flight delay of +24hrs, which left me stranded in the well-known hell-hole that is Jersey (Channel Islands). Their denial was based on the 'technicality' in the policy that stated such claims could only be applied to journeys outside the United Kingdom.

Imagine their surprise when I sent them a copy of Hansard which contained the very helpful phrase "The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom". Claim paid within 48 hours. No apology.

[Deleted User]

The_Bookman wrote: »

Imagine their surprise when I sent them a copy of Hansard which contained the very helpful phrase "The Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom". Claim paid within 48 hours. No apology.

To be fair, I'd say it was you who won on a technicality rather than the company trying to deny the claim on a technicality.