Bank lying to limit refund?

Offin16

Hi all, could do with some guidance. We contacted the bank that is now responsible for our missold ppi. They said we'd never had it. We sent a copy of a letter confirming our ppi and it's start date, they claimed the policy was cancelled one month later (after a single payment). They did however admit it was missold and offer to refund. We now have proof that it wasn't cancelled and was paid for at least 1 year, very likely 8 years (finding exact details may mean acquiring 7 years of old bank statements). How do we now proceed? It would seem they have a system by which they lie at each stage to limit the refund.
Grateful for any advice.

[Deleted User]

If you have documentary evidence proving you paid PPI for longer than the Bank's records show, then present this evidence to the Bank. There should be no problem having the extra amount refunded to you.

There is no "conspiracy" to limit the refund.

However, where are you hoping to get the 7 years of old bank statements from? It doesn't appear the Bank you complained to has these records..

Offin16

Hi, the bank now responsible for ppi isn't the same bank that is providing 22 yr old statements (thankfully). However, the statements aren't free. And I'm suspicious about the assumption that we'd have only kept the ppi for 1 month, surely that isn't a likely turn of events? Why might that assumption be made?

[Deleted User]

Offin16 wrote: »

Hi, the bank now responsible for ppi isn't the same bank that is providing 22 yr old statements (thankfully).

Why is one bank assuming responsibility for a different one which can still provide you with old statements?

Are you definitely going to receive these old statements? Why do you think (or assume) they should be free?

Seems to me that you are mistaking incompetent record-keeping with a "conspiracy".

Care to name the banks concerned? It might go some way to explain what has occurred.

I'm guessing it's going to be Lloyds /TSB?

Offin16 wrote: »

I'm suspicious about the assumption that we'd have only kept the ppi for 1 month, surely that isn't a likely turn of events?

Since the customer had a "cooling off" period in which to cancel the insurance, I'd say the scenario you are suspicious of was very likely and not unusual at all.

Offin16

Hi,
Different banks, for this issue they are unconnected. Ppi bank, Barclays, is current owner (after a long line) of company with whom policy was held.
I don't expect the other bank to provide free statements, the point of original post was to request guidance on best way to proceed. Obviously, the best way to proceed would consider limiting outlay.
For the record, I've never suggested a conspiracy just that they have in place a system that at each stage offers the lowest possible refund. And given that they have done this twice but refuse to say whether they have the documentation it's a reasonable suspicion.
The cooling off period theory could be valid. I still think it's an unjustified approach though. (btw, for these purposes "very likely" & "not unusual" are very different things) Their letter states with certainty that a single payment was made. I know many people who would have simply accepted that. Funnily enough it's our usual lack of organisation that made us rightly suspicious.

dunstonh

It would seem they have a system by which they lie at each stage to limit the refund.

It is unlikely they are telling lies. It is more likely that they have little or no information on their system. Some staff, partiuculary younger ones who cannot recall the pre-computer days) place a lot of faith on their computer system and don't realise that records can pre-date computer.

And I'm suspicious about the assumption that we'd have only kept the ppi for 1 month, surely that isn't a likely turn of events? Why might that assumption be made?

Could be cancelled after you say a payment made. Its not an uncommon scenario. A late return of the cancellation rights could see that scenario. Or it could just be that is what the computer says because it was input that way from an old paper record.

I assume you are talking about a credit card here and not a loan (loan premiums are single premium - so only one payment made). Or mortgage PPI but that usually doesnt show on the bank systems easily as its a standalone product.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

It is unlikely they are telling lies. It is more likely that they have little or no information on their system.

The fact that Barclays have assumed responsibility for another lender complicates this still further. It's just an example of poor record keeping and is probably the result of the several transitions to other lenders over the years.

Offin16 wrote: »

I've never suggested a conspiracy just that they have in place a system that at each stage offers the lowest possible refund.

Since the mistake could also have just as easily been in your favour, it's not true that the "system" offers the lowest possible refund. The "system" is actually that you get a full refund of all PPI paid, plus 8% simple interest.

dunstonh

The fact that Barclays have assumed responsibility for another lender complicates this still further. It's just an example of poor record keeping and is probably the result of the several transitions to other lenders over the years.

That leads to all sorts of issues. Such as, the date the data was migrated over to the new system may be used for some date fields. Rather than the original date. That is a very common scenario on merger/takeovers. Old staff would know the quirks and dates but newer staff may not.

Offin16

Hi all, thanks for the advice & opinions. It's good to get a more dispassionate view. When you've been on the phone for an hour getting nowhere while the rest of your day piles up in front of you it's not difficult to end up cynical! I'll ask yet again what information they have and if they won't answer clearly I'll just have to buy a few more hundreds of pages of bank statements. Is there any chance of claiming these costs from Barclays?

[Deleted User]

No. .

[Deleted User]

Offin16 wrote: »

I'll just have to buy a few more hundreds of pages of bank statements.

I'll ask again, has the bank said they can actually provide statements from two decades ago?

Offin16 wrote: »

Is there any chance of claiming these costs from Barclays?

Seriously? What do you think?