Money back from bank of Scotland

headersandsills

I used resolver to claim back ppi from bank of Scotland 2 months ago , on Friday I received a letter telling me I’m getting £15,000 back , I’ve paid ppi to them for 17 years and as I was self employed I shouldn’t have.:j:j:money::rotfl:

Nasqueron

headersandsills wrote: »

I used resolver to claim back ppi from bank of Scotland 2 months ago , on Friday I received a letter telling me I’m getting £15,000 back , I’ve paid ppi to them for 17 years and as I was self employed I shouldn’t have.:j:j:money::rotfl:

Well done on the win, however, the self-employed status is not necessarily a reason for miss-sale, most PPI covered self employed people

headersandsills

So I might not be so lucky when I tackle Citibank and opus then .

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

self-employed status is not necessarily a reason for miss-sale, most PPI covered self employed people

While PPI on mortgages almost certainly covered the self employed, credit card and loan PPI was not as comprehensive and so frequently didn't.

Since the OP will not have been told why his complaint was upheld, we'll never know.

Nasqueron

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

While PPI on mortgages almost certainly covered the self employed, credit card and loan PPI was not as comprehensive and so frequently didn't.

Since the OP will not have been told why his complaint was upheld, we'll never know.

It usually did, the issue was more whether the conditions were too onerous to claim on it which would then make it unsuitable.

The classic example is on the FOS case studies - a self employed dental technician tried to claim on his PPI and it did cover him but required him to actually shut down his firm and cease trading when he was unable to work for a period - so even though it did cover him and would have paid out, to do so would have caused a great many problems hence it being miss-sold. If he had been unable to work for say 2 years and the policy would have paid out that long it would have been ok.

The case is here and it was loan PPI

https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/104/104-ppi.html

dunstonh

It is funny because in other FOS decisions, they do not consider the closure of the business to be an onerous condition when it is a claim on unemployment.

For example, this one: http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=131495

Because he was self employed, if he needed to claim, he would have had to
meet the policy requirement of ‘involuntarily stopping trading’.
<snip>
The policy applies different criteria depending on whether the policy holder is employed or
self-employed. In my experience this isn’t unusual in these types of policy. If Mr M became
unemployed (and receiving jobseekers’ allowance’), the insurer wouldn’t have paid his claim
unless he’d also ‘permanently ceased to trade.’ This also isn’t an unusual term, and the
requirement for self-employed persons to cease to trade is there to ensure the policy holder
really is unemployed – as opposed to finding themselves with little work or a down turn.

<snip>
My decision is that I do not uphold this complaint.