Question re credit card ppi

LadyCoupon

Does anyone know the reason why some people would have ppi on a credit card then others would not? I thought the thing was that if you had borrowed on a card, ie not paid off the balance each month then it was more or less guaranteed to have had ppi on, or have I got that wrong? Would they have just add ppi and not told me about it?

[Deleted User]

You've got that wrong.

Most of us chose not to have it.

You'd have seen it on every statement if you had it.

LadyCoupon

So we would have been asked if we wanted it on? ok thanks.

[Deleted User]

As posted on your duplicate thread:

LadyCoupon wrote: »

Does anyone know the reason why some people would have ppi on a credit card then others would not?

Simply because some customers agreed to purchase the insurance and others did not!

LadyCoupon wrote: »

I thought the thing was that if you had borrowed on a card, ie not paid off the balance each month then it was more or less guaranteed to have had ppi on, or have I got that wrong?

You've got it very wrong indeed.
Certainly anyone with a PPI policy on a credit card would only be charged when the account had an outstanding balance, but anyone without a PPI policy at all would never be charged.

LadyCoupon wrote: »

Would they have just add ppi and not told me about it?

No.
While that would certainly be mis-selling,it's a myth sponsored by claim companies that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of the customer.

Those who don't know they had the insurance have simply forgotten or failed to read what they were agreeing to.

LadyCoupon

Thanks for the info. I tried to delete my duplicate thread but couldn't.

[Deleted User]

There were many ways you could have been sold it in a way which the FCA would consider was "mis-sold". It's unlikely that there would never have been anything about PPI on the paperwork. That doesn't mean that anyone explained it or otherwise provided you with information to make an informed choice.

If you had PPI and you did not pay off your card in full every month, you would have seen a line of some sort on your statement for the premium - assuming you looked at credit card statements.

Not sure what's behind your question, but if you're weighing up whether or not you may have had it, consider the above. It does no harm to check whether you had it. You can then decide whether or not you were mis-sold and wish to complain.

In addition, the level of commission was often so high that the courts and now the regulator have decided that regardless of any other mis-selling, consumers should get a partial refund. This depends on particular dates. This part is a black and white decision. If your PPI had commission at the higher levels (most of it did) and you fall within the date range you get paid.

For these people, the FCA controversially decided that it was up to consumers to approach lenders rather than lenders to tell consumers that they had had unfair levels of commission. So although lots of people are owed this (because it's been decided the commission broke the law), only those who try to complain before the deadline will get it.

Stuart

Nasqueron

stuart_b wrote: »

There were many ways you could have been sold it in a way which the FCA would consider was "mis-sold". It's unlikely that there would never have been anything about PPI on the paperwork. That doesn't mean that anyone explained it or otherwise provided you with information to make an informed choice.

Card and loan PPI is considered non-advised, they don't need to do anything beyond say what it was, certainly they don't need to do a detailed explanation

stuart_b wrote: »

In addition, the level of commission was often so high that the courts and now the regulator have decided that regardless of any other mis-selling, consumers should get a partial refund. This depends on particular dates. This part is a black and white decision. If your PPI had commission at the higher levels (most of it did) and you fall within the date range you get paid.

For these people, the FCA controversially decided that it was up to consumers to approach lenders rather than lenders to tell consumers that they had had unfair levels of commission. So although lots of people are owed this (because it's been decided the commission broke the law), only those who try to complain before the deadline will get it.

Stuart

Plevin only applies to rejected complaints and only when the commission was over 50%. Those people who already had PPI refunds don't get anything else so there wasn't much point in contacting everyone, it was only for rejected PPI that people need to contact again and sites like MSE have widely publicised this

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

Card and loan PPI is considered non-advised, they don't need to do anything beyond say what it was, certainly they don't need to do a detailed explanation

Not true. The Handbook is quite clear on information which has to be provided in good time before completion of the sale.

In practice, if a complaint reaches the FOS they know and will say that many non-advised sales were still deficient on this point.

They will then look at whether they feel a consumer would have made a different decision (buy / not buy) if they had been given adequate information at the time of sale - i.e. based on potential benefit and eligibility.

There were plenty of other ways it may have been mis-sold on a CC application (e.g. no opt-in/ no ability to opt-out without striking through the section or not signing for the card).

The earlier responses to the OP did not adequately convey IMHO that it is a) worth checking and b) considering whether the sale was correctly handled.

Stuart

Nasqueron

stuart_b wrote: »

Not true. The Handbook is quite clear on information which has to be provided in good time before completion of the sale.

In practice, if a complaint reaches the FOS they know and will say that many non-advised sales were still deficient on this point.
They will then look at whether they feel a consumer would have made a different decision (buy / not buy) if they had been given adequate information at the time of sale - i.e. based on potential benefit and eligibility.

You're talking about post-regulation rules.

Store card PPI as an example did not have to have anything you suggest, it could be sold with a staff member simply saying what it was. They do not need to give all the information you were talking about in pre-regulation sales. PPI is not an advised product, there is no need for medical checks etc like with with ASU, MPPI, PHI etc

stuart_b wrote: »

There were plenty of other ways it may have been mis-sold on a CC application (e.g. no opt-in/ no ability to opt-out without striking through the section or not signing for the card).

The earlier responses to the OP did not adequately convey IMHO that it is a) worth checking and b) considering whether the sale was correctly handled.

Stuart

This might have been an issue when the PPI claims started but it's not now. Banks (and the FOS) know when they operated opt out boxes and/or had wording that was sufficient to be considered advice (e.g. "we strongly recommend you take this product"). There is pretty much zero chance that a bank that sold PPI in the past would not have checked how the sale was done

[Deleted User]

The OP of this thread did not specify that the finance in question was a store card, nor when any PPI (if it existed) was purchased.

The thrust of the OP's (merged) threads was to ascertain whether PPI could be simply added without the knowledge or permission of the customer.

Any further discussion is therefore somewhat off-topic.