PPI offer- appealing amount

[Deleted User]

Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining.

It's commonplace for lenders to have to make reasonable assumptions to fill in blanks in premium payments like this where they know the policy started earlier. In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.

As the OP discovered from seeing their SAR response the banks often have to wade through mountains of paper as well to correctly handle these complaints. They are usually under more time pressure than you also and anything less tahn straightforward like this has a good chance of going wrong.

Stuart

-taff

stuart_b wrote: »

Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining

All those? Rein yourelf in there buddy.....

[Deleted User]

stuart_b wrote: »

In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.

I remain unconvinced.

Nasqueron

stuart_b wrote: »

Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining.

It's commonplace for lenders to have to make reasonable assumptions to fill in blanks in premium payments like this where they know the policy started earlier. In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.

As the OP discovered from seeing their SAR response the banks often have to wade through mountains of paper as well to correctly handle these complaints. They are usually under more time pressure than you also and anything less tahn straightforward like this has a good chance of going wrong.

Stuart

Giving people an honest answer is better than just telling them what they want to hear. That is not telling people not to complain, it's telling them whether they have a realistic chance.



Should the OP ever return and post the letter on an image sharing site so people can see what the decision was then it might be useful, if not we can only speculate on whether it was from a bank error, new evidence found or the FOS saying they should pay PPI based on average spend from the records that do exist.

lee1972

I’ve just been redirected back to this thread from another thread I’ve created for another PPI claim I made. I still have the letter if I can work out how to post it or if someone can explain the process.

My response to money ineptitude was provoked by his earlier posts on this thread that seem to suggest that I was making things up. Quite patronising in fact. And obviously I was very pleased to get large additional payout.

Image sharing site? Suggestion please?

lee1972

Nasqueron wrote: »

Placida there are simply a lot of cases on this and indeed, most forums where people are told something they don't want to hear, only to return after a long period claiming to have got the result they wanted despite all the evidence saying they wouldn't, akin to the infamous "and then everyone stood and clapped for me" lies you see. Perhaps FOS told the bank to recalculate based on average spending backdated to 1980, perhaps the sums were wrong, perhaps the OP is not truthful. Without the calculations and/or a copy of the letter it could be any of those things, the problem really seems to be the OP focused so much on this conversation on the phone saying they had PPI in 1980 and believing this was the silver bullet that guaranteed a payout for 14 more years and perhaps overloooked something else in their paperwork explaining why the bank changed their mind or why the FOS ruled the way they did.

I see your point here and you express it much better than “ineptitude”. Happy to provide proof that I’m not “not truthful”!

[Deleted User]

lee1972 wrote: »

It wasn’t a waste of time though was it? :rotfl:

Dunno.......

lee1972

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Dunno.......

Lol...

I’m happy to provide a jpeg of the letter confirming everything I’ve said above is true.

Are you going to apologise if I do?

lee1972

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

I'd be quite content to admit I was wrong if I didn't remain unconvinced that this thread is genuine.

Just let me know what proof you’d like, and you can have it!

I’m honestly looking forward to supplying it :coffee:

Nasqueron

Scan a copy of the letter and upload it to photobucket or similar


Not really sure what you hope to achieve, the first reply to your post (mine) told you that if you had proof you paid it from 1980, rather than 1994, then they'd pay more. If you supplied that proof then they are obligated to pay it. The reason your post seems odd is that you're basing your entire argument on the fact the call centre staff member said it started in 1980 even though they have the application form saying you wanted PPI signed and dated by you in 1994



The numbers you supply are odd too - 1994-2019 refund = 25 years = £3370. 1980-1994 = 14 years = refund of £10000 - based on not having any records?