We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 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!

Appealing PPI decision

Options
Hi

i have used a company to reclaim my PPI which has been rejected, they have advised i appeal, but what i want to know is if i appeal without them, as in i do it personally and am successful, will i still have to pay them their 20% ??

advice gratefully received

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    boormo wrote: »
    i have used a company to reclaim my PPI which has been rejected, they have advised i appeal, but what i want to know is if i appeal without them, as in i do it personally and am successful, will i still have to pay them their 20% ?
    You need to understand that you have signed a legally-binding contract for this firm to represent you in this PPI complaint to it's conclusion.

    So, although it is your own choice whether to "appeal" the rejection or not, you cannot refer this complaint without also involving the firm. You've signed away your ability to act alone.

    Therefore, if you are eventually awarded redress, you will indeed get a bill for 20% of the gross amount plus VAT.

    Sorry.

    Out of interest, what was your complaint and why was it rejected?
  • hi

    thanks for your input, it was the answer i was expecting. the rejection was about sick pay at my employment at the time, although if they had given me the date i took out PPI i would have been able to supply the correct info as i was 3 years out in my estimation of when i did take it out. fortunately when the PPI was taken out i was in a job with full sick pay etc so i do expect the rejection to be reversed.
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 35,242 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    How are you defining 'full sick pay'?

    I wouldn't expect the rejection to be reversed on that basis.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,630 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    For a credit card or short loan, NHS levels of sick pay (6 months full, 6 months half) would work. If you are talking about normal company pay, you will rarely find firms offering much more than a couple of weeks - a month before you go onto SSP and this is not sufficient to win a complaint

    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.

  • i was lucky that i had SSP plus the difference between that and my wage made up for by my company for a year then my company insurance paid out full pay till i pop my clogs
  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 26,612 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 26 April 2019 at 12:30PM
    boormo wrote: »
    i was 3 years out in my estimation of when i did take it out.
    This just shows how little Claim Companies do. You provided all details yourself and the company just posted them off for you. Why didn't the Claim Company advise you to find out prior to complaint the exact dates in question?
    boormo wrote: »
    i was lucky that i had SSP plus the difference between that and my wage made up for by my company for a year
    If you hope to have the rejection overturned, you'll have to provide documentary evidence of this unusually generous sick pay to the Ombudsman.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 10,630 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    I'd assume you could also provide some sort of evidence in the form of HMRC tax returns too as that sort of BIK would be a taxable benefit

    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.

This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.8K Life & Family
  • 257.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.