Refund of 50% ppi?

Curiousannie

Can someone please help, I’ve tried reclaiming for ppi myself, had used a company for other ppi previously. The company is Creation Finance, totally missold at a football ground, my husband said he’d been approached about a credit card that gives you special discounts for any purchases made at the football club. So he went ahead to apply for one, this was in 2007. I have used the resolver page to help with ppi, my husband is self employed and we didn’t know if there was ppi on the card, turned out there was! So I put a claim on for reasons 1) didn’t know ppi was added 2) he’s self employed so waste of money as never covered. We were totally ignored so I sent an email asking for a SAR, which we received and the contract has only got my husbands name and address on it, nothing else at all! No employment details filled in, no DOB, no signature nothing. It’s as if the seller just filled his name and address in and eh presto he was sent a credit card. They also included a 3D insurance policy which says you are entitled to claim if self employed or employed, annoyingly we had never seen this paperwork before and never knew he had any kind of insurance on it, the letter states we would’ve been sent all policies with the card, a complete lie. Now I have sent a final letter before escalating the case to the FOS, we received an offer 4 days ago but it states we knew the ppi was added ( no we didn’t) and that the policy was also sent and it was our choice if we wanted to cancel ( which we didn’t apparently!!!) and that as agreed by the FOS they will refund us only 50% of the ppi we paid in. Plus interest. They’re saying 50% = £155 plus interest etc totals £1600! I’m shocked at how much but why are they saying only 50%? Are they trying to swindle us? Should I accept this? I have no idea? I’m happy with the offer but not happy if I think they’re trying to reduce what we are really entitled to. They state if I accept the offer they will pay within a month, but I can otherwise take it to the FOS if I want to reject the claim. I don’t want to reject it I just want to know if what they’re offering is legal and correct. Help anyone!!!

[Deleted User]

It appears they're making a goodwill gesture as they disagree you were mis sold.

Your complaint about self employment was rejected as it was untrue and they also believe you knew you had it. This would be supported by the fact you would have seen it on every statement over the last 12 years.

If you disagree, you can go to FOS.

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User wrote: »

It appears they're making a goodwill gesture as they disagree you were mis sold.

Sounds more like a Plevin refund of undisclosed commission above 50%, perhaps?

It would be helpful if the OP simply reproduced the content of the Bank's letter rather than their interpretation of it.

Nasqueron

This has been posted twice by OP and yes I agree it's Plevin


Answer per the other topic



1) PPI is on every statement where you get charged, saying you didn't know is not a miss-selling reason
2) PPI usually did cover the self employed so that is not a miss-selling reason
3) PPI was not an advised sale, simply reading the form and signing it is sufficient (the SAR could just have contained a reconstituted form, not the original)
4) How are you going to prove you didn't receive the letters they sent you?

Curiousannie

Firstly, since having the SAR I have noticed for the first 2 years there was a 3D cost and then interest, I never knew what that was until now. I did not and never knew ppi was added, we have always been very careful when having any kind of loan or car finance as it normally never covers you in self employment! The ppi refund I have received previously was from a loan in 1999, again had no idea it was added. I’m just curious as to why they say they re only refunding 50% of the ppi? Creation are terrible to do anything above board (read other people’s commnets about this company) this is why I’m a little sceptical about the offer. We never did receive any kind of policy from them and that’s why I never knew it was added! I’m furious that these finance companies have ripped people off so many times, it’s disgusting

-taff

Curiousannie wrote: »

We never did receive any kind of policy from them and that’s why I never knew it was added!

It's conceivable that you didn't get the policy documents, however, the claim that you didn't know it was added it completely unfeasible, because....
any month where there was an outstanding balance the PPI would have been charged as a separate item on the statement.
It was there in black and white every single month.

Curiousannie

Well I’m telling you I never knew it was added as I would have cancelled it! Thank you all for your vile comments, I thought this site was to help people understand not be negative and try tellling me I knew I’d got it! You know nothing, I did not know, that’s why i am so shocked! Forget it, I’ll delete myself from this site. Ty all

Placida

Curiousannie wrote: »

Firstly, since having the SAR I have noticed for the first 2 years there was a 3D cost and then interest, I never knew what that was until now. I did not and never knew ppi was added, we have always been very careful when having any kind of loan or car finance as it normally never covers you in self employment! The ppi refund I have received previously was from a loan in 1999, again had no idea it was added. I’m just curious as to why they say they re only refunding 50% of the ppi? Creation are terrible to do anything above board (read other people’s commnets about this company) this is why I’m a little sceptical about the offer. We never did receive any kind of policy from them and that’s why I never knew it was added! I’m furious that these finance companies have ripped people off so many times, it’s disgusting

If you feel you were mis-sold, escalate your complaint to the FOS .
See here.https://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=116235
“The need to cease trading permanently is onerous. I think it’s a significant restriction Creation should’ve explained to Mrs M before she bought the policy….
Creation says Mrs M would’ve received a policy document and it was her responsibility to check the policy was right for her. But any policy document would’ve been sent after Mrs M had bought the PPI. Creation should’ve told Mrs M about it before she bought it. And, in any event, in the copy of the policy document I’ve seen (which is a very poor copy), the restriction is hard to find and Mrs M could easily have missed it – and what it meant for her - even if she’d read the policy document…….”

I believe Creation sold three types of insurance about that time.A 1D policy gave only PPI cover. A 2D policy gave only price and purchase protection cover, so it didn’t include PPI. A 3D policy gave both PPI and price and purchase protection cover.

Nasqueron

Getting answers that are correct but not what you want to hear is the nature of asking a question... Would you rather people lie and tell you that you had a cast iron case and just wave a magic wand and you'd get a full refund, or do you want the correct answer?


I'd strongly recommend you check your bank statements in the future if you didn't notice a charge every single month that you didn't recognise.


The low amount of the refund (£155) indicates you probably only had a small balance on the card or for a short period, when your card was clear you never paid PPI

Humdinger1

I have to say that I did a total refund of PPI from one cc purely on the basis of self employment. This was Egg back in 2011, but there was no attempt to argue or defend. I'm sure I've seen de facto checklists of grounds for refunds, and this is a fairly standard one as the grounds are so onerous.

OP, this is one worth taking to the ombudsmen in my opinion. Good luck

Humdinger

Bermonia

It is a common misconception that self employed equals mis-sold - this is is only true if the terms for claiming against a policy were any more onerous for those who were self-employed (most common is requirement to have permanently ceased trading) reality is terms changed frequently over the years and as such not that many are truly onerous