I say yes, they say no...

Rolyan

Just to clarify things, there are two cases I’ve mentioned here.

Firstly, mine. I took out several loans in the 80’s. The banks at that time almost always added on payment insurance automatically. Although it was mentioned at the time, that does not mean it was not mis-sold. I have no records (obviously) and I realistically accept that this can go no further.

Secondly, my partner. She was offered a store a few years ago. She thought the payment insurance was mandatory. But when she asked about this, during a PPI claim, they responded that she had never paid any. Which is completely untrue.

Rolyan

Apologies yet again for not being able to add to, edit, or quote a post via mobile.

I accept I am unlikely to be able to take my claim of the ‘80s any further. However, if I did, it would be based on the circumstances that while insurance was mentioned, it was definitely portrayed as part of the banks requirement to give a loan. To the best of my recollection, no questions were asked about any sick pay I was entitled to, length of service (re redundancy entitlement), existing savings, etc. It was very much a case of “if you want us to give you a loan, you need to take this out”. The above appears to fall under the general description of mis-selling as described on MSE and many other places.

Despite this, I accept that it is unlikely I’m able to take it further.

Nasqueron

Rolyan wrote: »

Apologies yet again for not being able to add to, edit, or quote a post via mobile.

I accept I am unlikely to be able to take my claim of the ‘80s any further. However, if I did, it would be based on the circumstances that while insurance was mentioned, it was definitely portrayed as part of the banks requirement to give a loan. To the best of my recollection, no questions were asked about any sick pay I was entitled to, length of service (re redundancy entitlement), existing savings, etc. It was very much a case of “if you want us to give you a loan, you need to take this out”. The above appears to fall under the general description of mis-selling as described on MSE and many other places.

Despite this, I accept that it is unlikely I’m able to take it further.

If the bank told you it was mandatory and it wasn't then yes that is miss-selling but how would you prove it? If it was mandatory then it wasn't miss-sold.


PPI was not an advised sale, it did not have to ask questions about sick pay. Redundancy is not guaranteed in the private sector. If you had savings, why would you take out a loan?


Incidentally, not sure why you can't quote, if you can reply to a post then all you need to do is press the quote button under a post and it will load the page for you

[Deleted User]

Rolyan wrote: »

I took out several loans in the 80’s. The banks at that time almost always added on payment insurance automatically.

That's not true at all I'm afraid.
In fact, the insurance was rare in the Eighties as already discussed earlier in the thread.

If you had PPI, you would have signed an Agreement which detailed the PPI. It was only "added" without your knowledge if you failed to read what you were signing.

As you say, with no records of this phantom PPI from your own archive, any further discussion about it is purely academic.

Bermonia

With regards to your wife’s ‘PPI’ are you certain it wasn’t card protection insurance she had, this was something very different - however same situation applies if no evidence from you/wife to contrary then the complaint goes no further - as a minimum lenders and even FOS have to be certain that PPI existed.

Ganga

Rolyan wrote: »

Just to clarify things, there are two cases I’ve mentioned here.

Firstly, mine. I took out several loans in the 80’s. The banks at that time almost always added on payment insurance automatically. Although it was mentioned at the time, that does not mean it was not mis-sold. I have no records (obviously) and I realistically accept that this can go no further.

Secondly, my partner. She was offered a store a few years ago. She thought the payment insurance was mandatory. But when she asked about this, during a PPI claim, they responded that she had never paid any. Which is completely untrue.

If your partners credit card was only obtained a few years ago you must still have or have access to her monthly statements,this will show if she did indeed pay PPI.If true she can claim if she did not request it.

[Deleted User]

Ganga wrote: »

If your partners credit card was only obtained a few years ago you must still have or have access to her monthly statements,this will show if she did indeed pay PPI.If true she can claim if she did not request it.

PPI on credit cards and loans ceased to be offered at all by the major lenders in recent years.
As already stated, complaining that it was added without permission is not going to gain a refund because it just means the complainant did not read what they were signing...

Rolyan

Re my loans

I’ve still not made it clear, so I’ll give it one more go, only in response to the help and comments I’ve had, which I appreciate. Then we can finish.

When I took out the loan, I WAS informed that PPI/Insurance was being added. It was shown as an extra cost. Yes, I knew about it, as I’ve constantly said.

However, the suggestion by the lenders, was that I had to have it if I wanted a loan with that bank. That IS how it was portrayed. I niaively accepted this at the time, as did many of us buying our first cars. We were young and inexperienced, dealing with large banking organisations for the first time.

Since then I have read, on PPI claim sites, in general discussions and even I think on MSE, that being told about PPI wasn’t necessarily an argument against mis-selling. The banks had a responsibility to make some effort to check that the PPI was suitable. They should not have done what they did in my case, which is simply tell me that it was there as a condition of my loan. For example, many advisors have mentioned that sick pay should have been considered before offering PPI to cover missed payments if off sick. Yet that was never discussed.

Obviously there are some on here that don’t agree with that definition of mis-selling, which is fine, they can have that opinion. I’ll stick to the comments I’ve learned previously. Also, there is an undertone from some on here that seems to suggest that perhaps my recollection of events is not correct, deliberately or otherwise. It is, and I don’t understand why some are reacting that way, but as someone has said, it’s purely academic now.

Thank you to everyone for your input.

[Deleted User]

Rolyan wrote: »

When I took out the loan, I WAS informed that PPI/Insurance was being added. It was shown as an extra cost. Yes, I knew about it, as I’ve constantly said.

The problem is that you have NOT constantly said this. Earlier, you said the PPI was added automatically which implies that you had no say at all, not that you were told it was compulsory and naively never checked otherwise.

Incidentally I agree that being told a falsehood in order to gain a sale is very much mis-selling, but the problem is trying to present any evidence. Such "hearsay" type complaints are rarely upheld unless the Bank finds something else wrong with the sale as part of their investigation.

Rolyan wrote: »

there is an undertone from some on here that seems to suggest that perhaps my recollection of events is not correct, deliberately or otherwise. It is, and I don’t understand why some are reacting that way, but as someone has said, it’s purely academic now.

Unfortunately, your memory is not at issue here at all. Your problem is lack of evidence, most tellingly that you even had a PPI policy all those years ago. Unless you, or the Bank, can somehow produce that evidence this conversation remains purely academic.

dunstonh

The problem with "it was told I had to have it" is that every try-it-on and fraudulent complaint also say that. So, without any evidence to support that allegation, it is unlikely to succeed on that particular point. It may succeed on another point, including something you may not have raised. However, that reason in isolation is very weak.