Statutory sick pay and savings

elsien

greedybankers wrote: »

How rude and presumptious of you

You're saying I'm either rubbish with money or dishonest

The first is not for you to say even if it were true and you have no basis for the second

You did say in your first post you'd give whichever answer would give you the most successful outcone......

Nasqueron

greedybankers wrote: »

Unlike the bank in foisting PPI on me in the first place! Nealy 20 years I've been paying it. Thieves

Let's be honest, the PPI situation isn't great I agree but at the same time, you are claiming it was "foisted" on you but you still signed the documents to say you agreed to have it and paid it for 20 years, that doesn't sound like something you didn't want. It's hard to separate genuine claims from try it on cases who just see £££. Much PPI was miss-sold as it either wouldn't cover you or people were told they had to have it when they didn't but equally many people agreed to have it and now put in claims saying they didn't want it because they think it's easy money.

comeandgo

If you had only statutory sick pay and no savings then PPI was for you. If your employer paid your full wages when you were off sick and you had thousands in the bank then PPI may not have been suitable for you.

dunstonh

greedybankers wrote: »

How rude and presumptious of you

You're saying I'm either rubbish with money or dishonest

The first is not for you to say even if it were true and you have no basis for the second

There is plenty to suggest you are bad at money management.

1 - you say you had savings but at the same time you were borrowing money on the credit card.
2 - According to you, you paid PPI for 20 years. That is 20 years worth of statements showing a PPI payment. So, that is 20 years of not checking your statements.

As for fraud, your first post did say you were looking at how you should answer in a way that may help your case even if it is not the truth. You are calling the banks thieves and that it was foisted on you. But at the same time you cannot recall how it was sold. So, which is it?

If you are going to tell porkies when making a PPI complaint, then be prepared for the bank to ask for evidence. It is quite common when people use a) "had savings" approach and b) sick pay that doesnt match their records.

greedybankers

I'm not going to get drawn into it but thank you for your help.

I contacted my old boss and he said "Dad did all the grown up stuff (*) so whilst I can't be certain, he ran a business all his life so I suspect he did it properly, so yeah sick pay."

* It was the late 90s, we were 20 year olds with VCs throwing £100,000s at our Internet startup

I conveyed this to the bank.

I found some old statements for a current account of that period. My balance averaged around £2,000 over a 12 month period. I told the bank that but said I don't know whether that constitutes savings or not. Later in the conversation he referred to that as "savings".

So there you go. We'll see what happens. Thank you all for your help.

BoGoF

Yeah, £2000 would go far if you lost your job.

[Deleted User]

greedybankers wrote: »

they've confirmed I had PPI and there's no way in hell I would have agreed to it.

It's a myth sponsored by Claim Companies that PPI was routinely added without the knowledge and permission of the customer. If you didn't know you had it, then you've simply forgotten signing up for it and haven't checked your monthly statements (that's 240 in 20 years!)

Regardless, having had government statutory sick pay won't help your complaint but showing that you had considerably more in your current account than your credit card balance (over a long period) may swing it for you.

Accusing the Bank of "foisting" the PPI on you and of being "thieves" will not help your case in any way.