MSE News: 'I claimed £3k for mis-sold PPI even though it paid out six times while I was sick'

Former_MSE_Megan_F

A mortgage holder received a PPI reclaim payout of £3,364 - on a policy he previously claimed more than £12,000 from whilst on sick leave from his job

Read the full story:
'I claimed £3k for mis-sold PPI even though it paid out six times while I was sick'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

Nasqueron

I think we have hit a new low in greed

dunstonh

If you've got a PPI policy that you've claimed against previously, it may still be worth seeing if you can be refunded, if you think you were mis-sold.

Only if you're a compensation chasing parasite.

Shame this one wasnt rejected. Possibly an auto-payout. It is hard to see how a policy that has paid out 6 times could be classed as unsuitable. Still, that is banks for you. So, scattergun on their decisions sometimes.

Genuine PPI complaints are fine. These greedy try-it-ons are the ugly side of it.

Takeaway_Addict

Bit red top bending of the news


If you read it the guy actually paid over £15k in PPI and had the £12k he was paid out claimed back....the £3kish was the difference.


To me that is fair enough as he isn't profiting from it.

Nasqueron

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

Bit red top bending of the news


If you read it the guy actually paid over £15k in PPI and had the £12k he was paid out claimed back....the £3kish was the difference.


To me that is fair enough as he isn't profiting from it.

It's not about profiting, PPI miss-selling is about being sold a product you didn't want (but were forced to take / conned into taking out) or that was unsuitable and being compensated for having to pay for it. That's like saying I should demand my car insurance back because I didn't crash.


In this case he claims he didn't want it due to work benefits but didn't complain until 10 years after (so not that big a deal, smacks of try it on culture encouraged by this site) and said he didn't need it but claimed on the policy which paid out on top of these work benefits and undoubtedly helped save his home.


6 months full pay is nice if off sick, what happens at month 7, or month 12 or month 24 for some long term sickness that stops you working for a serious length of time and your work has stopped paying? His argument was that he had life insurance (so, he was planning on dying if he couldn't pay his bills) and redundancy (not contractual, else it would be taxed, and limited payout).


The fact MSE is telling people in that piece to complain about policies that were demonstrably suitable, useful and valid because they paid out is the sort of ridiculous money grubbing this site has sunk to.



I await the next downturn with some amusement when people start complaining about banks having cancelled their PPI policies because they complained and no doubt MSE will be coming up with some idea to try and get compensation for people losing their homes because they had the PPI policy cancelled for a quick buck

problemcashback

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's not about profiting, PPI miss-selling is about being sold a product you didn't want (but were forced to take / conned into taking out) or that was unsuitable and being compensated for having to pay for it. That's like saying I should demand my car insurance back because I didn't crash.


In this case he claims he didn't want it due to work benefits but didn't complain until 10 years after (so not that big a deal, smacks of try it on culture encouraged by this site) and said he didn't need it but claimed on the policy which paid out on top of these work benefits and undoubtedly helped save his home.


6 months full pay is nice if off sick, what happens at month 7, or month 12 or month 24 for some long term sickness that stops you working for a serious length of time and your work has stopped paying? His argument was that he had life insurance (so, he was planning on dying if he couldn't pay his bills) and redundancy (not contractual, else it would be taxed, and limited payout).


The fact MSE is telling people in that piece to complain about policies that were demonstrably suitable, useful and valid because they paid out is the sort of ridiculous money grubbing this site has sunk to.



I await the next downturn with some amusement when people start complaining about banks having cancelled their PPI policies because they complained and no doubt MSE will be coming up with some idea to try and get compensation for people losing their homes because they had the PPI policy cancelled for a quick buck

Let’s not get carried away by your first sentence, reality is most people who took PPI didn’t bother to understand it, ticket it because they thought it was useful and the rest of us who took our time over it and figured out what it was for didn’t bother with it in the first place. Yes there were some who may have been mis sold because they were but sadly not everyone was but everyone gets their money back.


The next version of PPI is supposedly going to be car finance PCP and Leases, woman on a news report complained she was mis sold a lease because the car company had not taken into account the fact she was going on maternity and couldn’t afford it, the dealer paid her off. You couldn’t make half of this up never mind all if it. Eventually you have to take ownership for your own actions.

ValiantSon

Nasqueron wrote: »

It's not about profiting, PPI miss-selling is about being sold a product you didn't want (but were forced to take / conned into taking out) or that was unsuitable and being compensated for having to pay for it. That's like saying I should demand my car insurance back because I didn't crash.


In this case he claims he didn't want it due to work benefits but didn't complain until 10 years after (so not that big a deal, smacks of try it on culture encouraged by this site) and said he didn't need it but claimed on the policy which paid out on top of these work benefits and undoubtedly helped save his home.


6 months full pay is nice if off sick, what happens at month 7, or month 12 or month 24 for some long term sickness that stops you working for a serious length of time and your work has stopped paying? His argument was that he had life insurance (so, he was planning on dying if he couldn't pay his bills) and redundancy (not contractual, else it would be taxed, and limited payout).


The fact MSE is telling people in that piece to complain about policies that were demonstrably suitable, useful and valid because they paid out is the sort of ridiculous money grubbing this site has sunk to.



I await the next downturn with some amusement when people start complaining about banks having cancelled their PPI policies because they complained and no doubt MSE will be coming up with some idea to try and get compensation for people losing their homes because they had the PPI policy cancelled for a quick buck

I couldn't agree more. This is yet another example of MSE pushing the utterly immoral agenda of trying to screw banks (and other companies) as much as you can..If someone has genuinely been mis-sold, then I am all for them getting their money back, but this is not a case of mis-selling, and MSE keep promoting this kind of disgusting and greedy behaviour.

The editorial policy of MSE is completely amoral. I find the whole thing utterly reprehensible.

pdel61

Agree with the above, people no longer need to bother taking responsibility for their own actions as sites like this build up a large amount on momentum and most of the companies can't be bothered to fight, it's easier to pay out. We have the same with the compensation culture in the NHS and other areas, any time someone feels they have been hard done by or injured, however caused it's straight to the lawyers to see what they can get. We had bank charges, PPI, and others, the vast majority of which people knew what they were getting into, but now have a way of claiming it all back.

[Deleted User]

While I agree that those genuinely covered by PPI policies now getting refunds is wrong, the fact is that PPI was and is a rubbish product and the Banks are deservedly paying the price for (mis) selling it.
Even PPI policies on mortgages, still available today, is far from generous insurance which effectively provides only very short term protection when people lose their jobs through no fault of their own..

Nasqueron

problemcashback wrote: »

Let!!!8217;s not get carried away by your first sentence, reality is most people who took PPI didn!!!8217;t bother to understand it, ticket it because they thought it was useful and the rest of us who took our time over it and figured out what it was for didn!!!8217;t bother with it in the first place. Yes there were some who may have been mis sold because they were but sadly not everyone was but everyone gets their money back.


The next version of PPI is supposedly going to be car finance PCP and Leases, woman on a news report complained she was mis sold a lease because the car company had not taken into account the fact she was going on maternity and couldn!!!8217;t afford it, the dealer paid her off. You couldn!!!8217;t make half of this up never mind all if it. Eventually you have to take ownership for your own actions.

I get that there is an awful lot of try it on, statistics indicate half the cases the FOS get are people demanding a refund when they didn't even have PPI but at the same time there was an awful lot of it - storecards and finance for cars especially where there was commission around - don't tell customers what it is, tick the boxes, sign here and here, job done. Even allowing for auto pay cases, the firms are refunding most of the cases so I think saying most people signed up for it without knowing it needs either a citation or retraction.


An isolated case of PCP refund because of a circumstance that is probably going to be unique doesn't sound like a wave that's starting. Remember regulation covering everyone started in 2005, 13 years on it's going to be hard to find genuine miss-selling when the paperwork trail will be watertight