Halifax PPI Help Needed

CAbbott16

Dear All, please beware of the charges when calling the 0800 numbers ( Halifax, Lloyds etc).
I have just been charged FIFTEEN pounds for ringing 0800 151 0293 Halifax PPI Customer Services ,Leeds.
This is absolutely appalling, can they charge this extortionate amount for a phone call, are they trying to 'claw back' funds, I have no idea. Anyone else been subjected to these horrendous charges.:mad:

dunstonh

Dear All, please beware of the charges when calling the 0800 numbers ( Halifax, Lloyds etc).

0800 is free

I have just been charged FIFTEEN pounds for ringing 0800 151 0293 Halifax PPI Customer Services ,Leeds.

Halifax are not charging you for using a freephone number.

This is absolutely appalling, can they charge this extortionate amount for a phone call, are they trying to 'claw back' funds, I have no idea. Anyone else been subjected to these horrendous charges.

You may wish to raise this with your phone operator and ask them why you have been charged by them (not Halifax) for using a freephone number.

[Deleted User]

CAbbott16 wrote: »

I have just been charged FIFTEEN pounds for ringing 0800 151 0293 Halifax PPI Customer Services ,Leeds.

Are you certain this was the number for which you were charged by your telecoms provider? 0800 numbers are automatically free on landlines and (since 2015) on mobiles.
Take it up with your provider.

hammersfaniow

Decided to do a bit more digging and a friend of mine actually worked for one of the companies that RBS, Lloyds, Halifax etc use to assess the claims and decide if policies were missold.

Savings certainly don!!!8217;t need to be 1-2 years salary, you need to have had enough to cover 18 months of the loan repayments and have been instantly accessible. If you had 6 months full sick pay, or 6 months full redundancy pay then this too would trigger an automatic refund of the PPI. Same if you had 1-2 years death in service cover.

As for not being aware if there was even PPI on the policy, I!!!8217;m sure thousands of people can!!!8217;t remember details of loans started 12 years ago and have been finished for 7 years, but we can remember employment details, savings etc

dunstonh

Savings certainly don!!!8217;t need to be 1-2 years salary, you need to have had enough to cover 18 months of the loan repayments and have been instantly accessible.

FOS decisions dont support that.

If you had 6 months full sick pay, or 6 months full redundancy pay then this too would trigger an automatic refund of the PPI.

FOS decisions dont support that.

Same if you had 1-2 years death in service cover.

DIS has no overlap with PPI. So, that point is irrelevant and has nothing to do with PPI. Did your friend actually work in the decisions team or was it the canteen?

hammersfaniow

The lowest form of wit being used there

They actually worked in the relevant department that handles all the final decisions on repaying PPI

But I await your links to where it differs from this according to the FOS

[Deleted User]

hammersfaniow wrote: »

But I await your links to where it differs from this according to the FOS

I think you should search the FOS website yourself rather than ask another poster to do the work for you.

Nothing you have detailed will trigger an "automatic" refund.

If I were you, I'd concentrate on finding out whether your five account numbers are a consolidation chain as I mentioned earlier. You have far more chance with that line of investigation than with any savings or personal insurance.

Rather than simply guessing that you may have had PPI, why not simply ask the Bank directly if you had it? Could save you a whole lot of effort constructing a (non) complaint.

hammersfaniow

I was merely asking for evidence of what was suggested after my previous quote was mocked - no harm in that.

Let’s leave it there for now and I’ll report back with the outcome

dunstonh

First one I found on the FOS website:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=147924

12 months sickpay. Rejected as the policy paid out in addition to sick pay (if it hadnt, it would have been upheld - this is pretty standard criteria)

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=160858

This is the next Halifax one in the list and it shows 6 months full pay and rejected. It also disregards savings as they are within an ISA and the savings value exceeded the amount borrowed.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=142063
The third one on the Halifax list said they had £20,000 in savings but it was rejected.

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=168559
This one has between 6-12 months salary in savings but was rejected.

Clearly your friend didnt work on any of these cases. To be fair, until about 12 months ago, Halifax were a soft touch. They were paying out on things that others would have rejected. They have tightened up since then and you are seeing more rejections now. And you are also seeing lenders across the board take notice of FOS decisions more. Things they upheld early on get rejected now as they learn more about what is and is not acceptable.

There is always a human element to these things. You sometimes see dead cert complaints get rejected and complete try-it-ons with nothing wrong get upheld.

The thing with the savings element is that there is no 12-24 months rule. It is left at discretion but the FOS look at expenses and the benefit of the cover relative to the savings. A policy that would only pay out for £100pm would likely be upheld with a relatively low amount of savings. A policy that covered £500pm would need a much higher level of savings. The savings need to be accessible, not in a tax wrapper and not risk based (investments). If the person was borrowing money instead of using savings then they are most likely to reject the savings argument as they clearly prefer to borrow rather than use their savings and dont want to put their savings at risk (as an FOS decision said)

Your complaint could well succeed. I am just saying that your comment about definitely being missold is not quite right in about those things.

hammersfaniow

Thanks for that. Interesting reading.

A few incorrect bits e.g. only 75% sick pay, but on the whole it’s very intriguing to read stuff like that. Makes me feel confident about my claim.

Thanks again for taking the time to post