Halifax and ombudsman Rejected PPI

archieoliver

Hi,
We recently found out that we had PPi with a Halifax loan in 2001. We never knew about the PPI but The halifax say it wasnt mis-sold. We then took it to the ombudsman. They say the same. The halifax said that we went to a branch to complete the loan and PPI was discussed, we know that it was completed over the phone and PPI wasnt mentioned. The form was filled in via a computer and posted to us to sign In good faith we signed it, my sister witnessed it. The ombudsman say we must have agreed to the PPI unless we have evidence to say otherwise? Any help/ideas please. Thanks.:(

[Deleted User]

As the Ombudsman have said - you'll need to provide your evidence.

[Deleted User]

archieoliver wrote: »

The form was filled in via a computer and posted to us to sign In good faith we signed it, my sister witnessed it. The ombudsman say we must have agreed to the PPI unless we have evidence to say otherwise?

It was posted for you to sign, but I'm afraid it's your own fault if you did this without reading what you were signing.

It's a myth sponsored by Claim Companies that PPI was routinely added to credit cards, loans and mortgages without the full knowledge and permission of the customer.

As there is no evidence to suggest that the PPI was simply added without you knowing, your complaint has not surprisingly been rejected by both the Bank and the Ombudsman.

Sorry to be so harsh, but your complaint is now over.

archieoliver

Thanks for your reply. But what evidence? As it was completed over the phone it is our word against theirs? I guess its a no win situation

dunstonh

we know that it was completed over the phone and PPI wasnt mentioned.

So, when the CCA form came in the post for you to sign and it showed the monthly repayments including PPI, why did you not raise it then?

The form was filled in via a computer and posted to us to sign In good faith we signed it, my sister witnessed it. The ombudsman say we must have agreed to the PPI unless we have evidence to say otherwise?

The CCA form breaks the cost of borrowing and shows PPI as a separate entry. So, if you signed it and had it witnessed, then what evidence do you have to say you didnt agree to it? The paperwork indicates you did agree to it.

Its all about what the evidence trail points towards.

As it was completed over the phone it is our word against theirs? I guess its a no win situation

its not your word against theirs. They have a signed agreement showing the PPI on it. So, the balance of probability favours them. You havent told us anything you have to counter it.

archieoliver

Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying but my husband had exactly the same scenario with Lloyds and yet they didnt argue. Never mind.

dunstonh

archieoliver wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. I see what you are saying but my husband had exactly the same scenario with Lloyds and yet they didnt argue. Never mind.

Over time, how complaints get viewed changes. It has happened in every widespread complaint area there has been.

During the peak of PPI complaints, a number of the banks were auto paying out wtihout even looking at them.

You also have a good 10 year history of FOS decisions. So, cases that may have been rejected early on may be upheld now or vice versa.

Plus, information changes and the FOS itself changes. Banks have also been delving into their archives and finding more data. Some of which helps people complain on older cases but can also result in new evidence coming to light that changes the position.

[Deleted User]

archieoliver wrote: »

I see what you are saying but my husband had exactly the same scenario with Lloyds and yet they didnt argue.

Although your husband may have made a similar complaint, there is no way of knowing whether his actual complaint was the reason the Bank refunded. It's possible Lloyds found something else wrong with the sale as part of their complaint investigation. It's even possible that his complaint was upheld without any investigation at all, especially if it was a while ago when the Banks were besieged by complaints and could not cope with the backlog..

Regardless, the result of his complaint is irrelevant to yours.