Plevin claim limitations

robtherelic

Hi,
Apologies if this has been answered before, but I can't seem to find any reference to it.
I believe Plevin claims for PPI on credit cards are limited to those which were active in April 2008.
Is April 2008 also the limiting date for which repayment of commission would be paid? For example, I have discovered that I had PPI on a credit card from December 1991 until September 2008, when the credit card account was transferred to MBNA. MBNA have made a payment to cover the period from when they took over the account and say they have forwarded my details to HSBC who are now responsible for the liabilities of the original account owner (HFC). So would any Plevin claim against HSBC be limited to the period April 2008 to September 2008, or would the whole term of the account apply?
I'd appreciate any information regarding this.

brettcta

In order to be eligible for Plevin, the account needs to meet one of the following criteria re dates:

Open before 6 April 2007 AND still in force on or after 6 April 2008

OR

Open after 6 April 2007.

If you've already been fully upheld for a missale complaint, you won't get anything back.

Nasqueron

robtherelic wrote: »

Hi,
Apologies if this has been answered before, but I can't seem to find any reference to it.
I believe Plevin claims for PPI on credit cards are limited to those which were active in April 2008.
Is April 2008 also the limiting date for which repayment of commission would be paid? For example, I have discovered that I had PPI on a credit card from December 1991 until September 2008, when the credit card account was transferred to MBNA. MBNA have made a payment to cover the period from when they took over the account and say they have forwarded my details to HSBC who are now responsible for the liabilities of the original account owner (HFC). So would any Plevin claim against HSBC be limited to the period April 2008 to September 2008, or would the whole term of the account apply?
I'd appreciate any information regarding this.

You only need to try a Plevin complaint if you have not already received a payout - so keep at HSBC to get a refund first

robtherelic

Hi,
Thanks both for your replies.
This is not a misselling case. When I initially took out the PPI I was permanently employed and had no other means of covering payments should I be made redundant. It was a concious choice to take the PPI. However, the level of commission was never, I believe, disclosed, hence my decision to make a Plevin claim. I just don't want to chase HSBC if it's going to simply be for recompense for less than 6 months of payments.

[Deleted User]

robtherelic wrote: »

However, the level of commission was never, I believe, disclosed, hence my decision to make a Plevin claim.

There was, and is not now, ever any requirement to disclose how much commission was paid.

Plevin is about undisclosed commission above the tipping point of 50%.

So you may or may not get a limited refund from HSBC , but "complaining" that you were not told how much commission was paid is not a valid complaint.

You have so far been lucky to receive a Plevin payout from MBNA, which is normally only granted to rejected PPI mis-selling complaints.

robtherelic

A quote from the Resolver.co.uk website Plevin claim process

Your rights
The bank or credit provider only owes you money if they failed to declare the amount of commission that was being charged - something that very rarely happened.

I believe Resolver is linked to this website in some capacity, apologies if I'm misinformed. This does, however, seem to indicate that failing to disclose the amount of commission being charged is indeed grounds for a claim.

As for Plevin usually only being granted to rejected mis-selling complaints. That is complete and utter madness. The 2 are completely unrelated and therefore should not have any bearing on each other. One is about selling an insurance product to a person for which it was not suitable and against which they would not be able to make a claim. The second is for taking unduly high levels of commission and thus increasing the cost of the premium to the customer.

[Deleted User]

robtherelic wrote: »

As for Plevin usually only being granted to rejected mis-selling complaints. That is complete and utter madness. The 2 are completely unrelated

I'll leave you to it...

Nasqueron

robtherelic wrote: »

A quote from the Resolver.co.uk website Plevin claim process

Your rights
The bank or credit provider only owes you money if they failed to declare the amount of commission that was being charged - something that very rarely happened.

MSE pages (including Resolver for the sake of brevity) contain a lot of information written in simple terms for the average person, not necessarily 100% accurate and without any legal weight.

robtherelic wrote: »

I believe Resolver is linked to this website in some capacity, apologies if I'm misinformed. This does, however, seem to indicate that failing to disclose the amount of commission being charged is indeed grounds for a claim.

It isn't. It might be grounds for a complaint but only if your finance was sold in a certain way and was active in a certain period. If one of the two conditions is not met, it is not miss-sold regardless of the commission level.

robtherelic wrote: »

As for Plevin usually only being granted to rejected mis-selling complaints. That is complete and utter madness. The 2 are completely unrelated and therefore should not have any bearing on each other. One is about selling an insurance product to a person for which it was not suitable and against which they would not be able to make a claim. The second is for taking unduly high levels of commission and thus increasing the cost of the premium to the customer.

Sorry but no, you don't understand how it works.

Plevin relates to the commission on the PPI sale which was added to your total finance costs. If you complain about PPI and are successful you receive a full refund which includes any commission so you don't need to make a further complaint as you'd already have received the money. While it is possible to make Plevin only complaints, this is largely pointless as the vast majority of people who complain about PPI want a full refund of the PPI payments not just the commission. Ever since the Plevin ruling came out I think this is maybe the second or third complaint about Plevin only complaining I have seen on here.

Incidentally, PPI complaints cover a much larger range of reasons than that one, some were essentially forced to take it out through being lied to; single premium PPI added the PPI to your loan meaning you paid interest on it as well as your loan; some had pre-ticked boxes etc.

dunstonh

I believe Resolver is linked to this website in some capacity, apologies if I'm misinformed. This does, however, seem to indicate that failing to disclose the amount of commission being charged is indeed grounds for a claim.

It can be but it is not for most people.

There has never been any regulatory requirement to disclose commission. This is why providers didnt do it. There was an obscure change in s140a of the consumer credit act in 2006 (effective 2008). This was used in the Plevin case and the court decided it created an unfair relationship.

As the change happened in 2008, this only affects existing credit that is a) regulated under the consumer credit act and b) where the credit agreement was still in force after 2008. e.g. if your debt ended in 2005 then Plevin did not apply.

As for Plevin usually only being granted to rejected mis-selling complaints. That is complete and utter madness.

No its not. If you have already had a 100% refund of premiums, there is nothing further to refund.

robtherelic

Nasqueron wrote: »

Sorry but no, you don't understand how it works.

Plevin relates to the commission on the PPI sale which was added to your total finance costs. If you complain about PPI and are successful you receive a full refund which includes any commission so you don't need to make a further complaint as you'd already have received the money. While it is possible to make Plevin only complaints, this is largely pointless as the vast majority of people who complain about PPI want a full refund of the PPI payments not just the commission. Ever since the Plevin ruling came out I think this is maybe the second or third complaint about Plevin only complaining I have seen on here.

Incidentally, PPI complaints cover a much larger range of reasons than that one, some were essentially forced to take it out through being lied to; single premium PPI added the PPI to your loan meaning you paid interest on it as well as your loan; some had pre-ticked boxes etc.

To address the additional reasons you quote first, I agree, but 'for brevity' I quoted what is, I believe, most people's understanding of a case of a mis-sold PPI.

As for me not understanding how it works, you then manage to disprove your own claim by stating that it is, in fact, possible to make Plevin only complaints. I don't wish to claim for mis-selling because I don't think I was mis-sold. My point is that fact should not and does not prevent me from making a Plevin claim against the PPI provider.

robtherelic

dunstonh wrote: »

No its not. If you have already had a 100% refund of premiums, there is nothing further to refund.

They are only related in the fact that the commission to which Plevin relates forms part of the premiums that are refunded for mis-sold PPI.
The point which I was attempting to make is that it is ludicrous to imply that somebody should HAVE to claim PPI was mis-sold and have that claim rejected before they can subsequently make a claim based on the Plevin ruling.