We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again - MSE News
Comments
-
Define "wanted".
The people who ticked a box to say they wanted it, the people who were offered it and signed to say they wanted it, the people who sought it out and bought it. Just because millions of people have seen the £££ and lied about not wanting it doesn't mean they didn't when they took it out.Found the information about PPI themselves and asked their bank for it?
Not sure what you're asking here - PPI details were always provided by the seller and the person agreed to it. Them not reading Ts & Cs or not understanding it doesn't miss-selling.OK. Refund if no claim was made.
I don't get a refund of my car insurance if I don't claim on it. I don't have a refund of mobile phone cover if I don't use it.Again, define misselling.
1) Single premium PPI where the PPI was added to the loan so you paid interest on that as well
2) Opt-out PPI where someone online had to actively choose NOT to have it
3) PPI that would not have covered the person (part time worker for example or if they had a pre-existing medical issue severe enough to ensure they wouldn't get a payout or for self-employed where the terms on claiming were too onerous e.g. having to shut your business)
NOT
1) Buyers remorse decades after
2) People pretending to not want itIf it's that simple, why the goalposts keep getting moved?
PPI miss-selling only became a major thing because of the FSA (at the time) decided that current selling rules should apply retrospectively - that's the big moving the goal posts. This happened in the case BBA v FSA and FOS, 20 April 2011
The only changes have been to give more help to consumers e.g. Plevin complaintsSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
"wanted"What word?
OK. I have £1M saved and live in a £100K house that I own. Do I need building insurance or not? Is there a definite answer to this question?No its not. People have a need for buildings insurance, life assurance etc.
I don't get it.Its not moving goalpost. It doesnt have anything to do with missale complaints. It is an additional issue.
more customers can try to reclaim
And I guess, those, whose claims were rejected, can claim again?
My impression is that this is almost negligible minority.*And who is going to pay for all that money refunded on all the good PPI plans set up?
And do we really know how much was wasted of bureaucrats, bank employees handling the complaints and on PPI parasites?
For the latter I am not sure whether they cost us extra, or just get the money from the people who couldn't care less in the past and can't care less now about the PPI they had.
*ETAMSE wrote:Have you been Plevined? A new rule means just having had PPI means most were mis-sold
Plevin is a newish mis-selling category of PPI. It pretty much means that if you got a loan or credit card from a bank or building society, you were mis-sold PPI.
For years, we've been shouting "Have you been mis-sold PPI?" but now – with this new rule – we're yelling "Have you simply had PPI?" Even if you knew what you were doing, you were likely mis-sold it.0 -
OK. I have £1M saved and live in a £100K house that I own. Do I need building insurance or not? Is there a definite answer to this question?
If your negligence caused damages to 10 houses also worth 100k then yes. Would you want to use all your savings to payout?
Realistically, everyone needs BUILDING insurance (it may well be a condition of the mortgage), they may choose not to have contents and let's be honest, if you live in a 100k house you don't have £1m in the bank unless you won the lottery and chose not to move.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Your "impression" is not backed up by the hard evidence. Although there was certainly a massive PPI mis-selling scandal, many bought the insurance willingly and subsequently benefitted from a legitimate claim.My impression is that this is almost negligible minority.
There is an argument that PPI was generally expensive and poor value for money, but that is not a valid mis-selling complaint.0 -
Do you call this a definite answer?If your negligence caused damages to 10 houses also worth 100k then yes. Would you want to use all your savings to payout?
Realistically, everyone needs BUILDING insurance (it may well be a condition of the mortgage), they may choose not to have contents and let's be honest, if you live in a 100k house you don't have £1m in the bank unless you won the lottery and chose not to move.
Theoretically a skint student-cyclist can kill somebody, not to mention injure. It's impossible to insure everything.0 -
Do you call this a definite answer?
Theoretically a skint student-cyclist can kill somebody, not to mention injure. It's impossible to insure everything.
Yes it is, a mortgage provider insists you have some form of buildings insurance QED you must have it or you don't get a mortgage or are in breach of the mortgage conditions.
A student can get cycling club membership or British Cycling (or equivalent) for £30 or less and get third party liability.
It's largely moot anyway as it's not what we are talking about
PPI was either optional or may have been required (e.g. via a broker to avoid paying a fee) or it could even have been a condition of the mortgage. If someone agreed to take it out by signing an agreement or actively sought it out, then yes they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they could have refused it.
Don't forget, the PPI industry has been filled with sharks and liars, consumers in particular claiming they were miss-sold because they want ££. I believe from Dunstonh's numbers, something like 50% of complaints going to the FOS about miss-selling in recent times were from people who never even had it, yet none are prosecuted for fraudSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
What provider?Yes it is, a mortgage provider insistsI ... live in a £100K house that I own.
The question was about need, not canA student can get cycling club membership or British Cycling (or equivalent) for £30 or less and get third party liability.
Would it not be more correct to say "signed/ticked" then instead of "wanted"?PPI was either optional or may have been required (e.g. via a broker to avoid paying a fee) or it could even have been a condition of the mortgage. If someone agreed to take it out by signing an agreement or actively sought it out, then yes they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they could have refused it.
It was my point that such words have to be avoided.
With this I agree absolutely and hold our beloved FSA and lawmakers responsible for this. Now we all pay for their incompetence.Don't forget, the PPI industry has been filled with sharks and liars, consumers in particular claiming they were miss-sold because they want ££. I believe from Dunstonh's numbers, something like 50% of complaints going to the FOS about miss-selling in recent times were from people who never even had it, yet none are prosecuted for fraud0 -
What provider?
Pretty much every mortgage provider will insist you have buildings insurance on condition of getting the mortgage. It would be easier to name those who do not (if that is any at all). At times it was mandatory to have life insurance or MIG for example. Lenders are not charities, if they insist on you having xyz to get the loan, you have xyz or no loan - they are allowed to do this. Now they cannot insist you buy through them but can still demand you have itThe question was about need, not can
Question was irrelevant to this debate
Would it not be more correct to say "signed/ticked" then instead of "wanted"? It was my point that such words have to be avoided.
If they ticked a box to say they agreed to take it out, it can only be inferred that they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they tick a box saying they didn't, or indeed, not tick the box. Similarly if they didn't want it, and the seller tried to include it, they could just refuse to sign for it. Playing around with semantics doesn't somehow change the facts.Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
It's nice to know people can still be pedantic about absolutely nothing. Yes you need buildings insurance if the mortgage provider requires it, No you don't have to have it if you own your house outright but if the house burned down, you'd better have eough in savings to cover it.
Any more spurious arguments?Non me fac calcitrare tuum culi0 -
@Nasqueron
I can only repeat "house that I own". I possibly have to clarify "own outright".
Question was relevant because you used this word to explain something while it needed explanation itself.
"Agree" and "want" are different words. Yes, "agree" is less ambiguous, but can't substitute "tick" and "sign" as a verbal agreement is usually very difficult to prove.
And it's the ambiguity of many laws and regulations that resulted in these endless 'clarifications' and wasted money as a result.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards