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!
Claiming PPI from previous marriage
Options
matttaylor
Posts: 45 Forumite
My partner tells me that she would like to try claiming for PPI rebates from loans taken out when she was married to her ex-husband.
She says that he was a bit of a loan maniac and he was juggling all sorts of financial agreements in both their names.
The trouble is he controlled the financial side of their marriage and she has no details at all of what was what.
She thinks her only option is to use a 3rd party PPI company despite knowing that they will take a big chunk of what they find.
Is there another way?
Kind regards,
Matt
She says that he was a bit of a loan maniac and he was juggling all sorts of financial agreements in both their names.
The trouble is he controlled the financial side of their marriage and she has no details at all of what was what.
She thinks her only option is to use a 3rd party PPI company despite knowing that they will take a big chunk of what they find.
Is there another way?
Kind regards,
Matt
0
Comments
-
Never use a claims company.
She will need to tell them who she had PPI with and why it was mis sold. They will then provide a stamp and envelope to post the form. She can buy those herself from the post office or other retailer for under a pound.
If they are joint loans, then she will also need to provide his details when she makes the complaint.
But if he controlled the loans, what would her mis sale reasons be?0 -
Any complaint will therefore have to be co-signed by both of them and any redress divided equally between them.matttaylor wrote: »She says that he was a bit of a loan maniac and he was juggling all sorts of financial agreements in both their names.
As already explained, use of a Claims Management Company will not help in any way, other than to rob your friend of 20% (plus VAT) of the redress.
PPI Rebates?0 -
Your financial records are not public domain information, claims firms require you to provide details of the finance to do the complaint (or potentially send complaints to everyone they can think of and hope something comes back) - they cannot find out your records otherwise.
It will be difficult to see how this complaint would proceed as she was effectively an unwilling party to fraud and not sure what she'd be able to complain about given she has no idea what was taken out in her name. The last 6 years are on her credit file but I would not bother trying with this as you don't even know who the finance was with, let alone if it even had PPI before you even consider making a complaint about miss-sellingSam 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 -
-
personal loans are nearly always in a sole name only. So, you cannot raise a complaint against a PPI sale on a loan that is not in your name.
A lot of the banks and the FOS require both parties to be involved in the complaint before they even consider it. Some don't but there is no hard and fast rule here and the bank refuse, the FOS dont overrule.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »How do you get "fraud" from "he was juggling all sorts of financial agreements in both their names."????
:eek:
It sounds to me from the wording it was an controlling / possessive partner taking out loans in her name without her being involved. My reading of "in both their names" is that he was taking out the finance in her name, rather than a joint product. This statement rather hints at that
"The trouble is he controlled the financial side of their marriage and she has no details at all of what was what."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 -
Bit of a leap there, Nazz.It sounds to me from the wording it was an controlling / possessive partner taking out loans in her name without her being involved.
I'm leaning more towards the type of partner who was simply allowed to take total responsibility for financial matters and for whom a signature without any explanation was often required. That's just ignorance, not fraud, of course.
Regardless, the OP's partner will doubtless need the involvement of the ex in any complaint. It should also be noted that any Claim Company will want a fee based on the whole redress even if the Op's partner is only entitled to 50% of anything awarded.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Bit of a leap there, Nazz.
I'm leaning more towards the type of partner who was simply allowed to take total responsibility for financial matters and for whom a signature without any explanation was often required. That's just ignorance, not fraud, of course.
Regardless, the OP's partner will doubtless need the involvement of the ex in any complaint. It should also be noted that any Claim Company will want a fee based on the whole redress even if the Op's partner is only entitled to 50% of anything awarded.
OP really needs to clarify it - by fraud I meant a controlling partner taking out loans in their partner's name through coercing them into signing for it without knowing what it was or even forcing them to do itSam 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
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards