PPI refund offset without notice.
Comments
-
You borrowed money, you failed to repay it due to illness
You are expecting them to refund you money you didn't pay back
It's perfectly acceptable for them to do this, if anything it is a good thing knowing more of your unpaid debt was paid off.
You have no entitlement to this moneySam 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 -
Nothing. They're allowed to offset against the unpaid amounts from your debt.0
-
Full and final settlements work both ways. The Bank agreed not to chase you for money you still owe, but that does not now give you the right to obtain a refund of monies you never paid in the first place.truthbombabe wrote: »I used a debt advisor and did a full and final settlement on all my loans.
You really shouldn't be. They don't need to give you "notice" of this either, though I would expect them to have written at some stage explaining where the money has gone.truthbombabe wrote: »I am appalled0 -
Hopefully you didn't use a claims company as they will be looking for their cut from you.0
-
-
Utter nonsence sourcrates0
-
sourcrates wrote: »If Natwest accepted a full and final settlement offer from you, and you have their agreement to this in writing, then they are wrong to keep your PPI payment.
They have essentially renaged on the deal that was brokered, and that is not good buisness practice, at the very least its down right cheeky, and at worst utterly dishonest.
If a deal is agreed, then its agreed, they cannot suddenly move the goalposts, a stong letter of complaint to Natwest, containing a threat to escalate to the FOS should be sent at once, along with a copy of the settlement agreement you have hopefully kept safe.
A full and final settlement just means they agree to stop chasing you for the debt, not that you don't owe it
Threatening the FOS is silly, they won't do anything as firms are allowed to offset the debt, it's not cheeky, it's not dishonest. Borrowing money, not paying it back and then demanding a refund of money you didn't pay in the first place, however...
Please read the below, what the bank did is 100% legitimate, they are perfectly entitled to do it and you'll be wasting the time and money of the bank, FOS staff and yourself to send in a complaint about something the bank is allowed to do
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html#approachSam 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 -
sourcrates wrote: »The bank agreed the deal then changed its mind, would you do buisness with an institution such as this ?
The person borrowed money then didn't pay it back, then demanded money back that they didn't pay, why are they not in a debtor's jail?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 -
Perhaps it's too much to ask that board guides post factually correct information.0
-
sourcrates wrote: »Nonsense is it, you may be right, but again I notice your all down on the OP like a ton of bricks, just because you dont like the "cut of their jib", again without any regard for the OP`s circumstances.
They may be entitled to do it, dosent make it fair, the bank is much more able to take the hit than the individual is.
Debtors jail, really ?
That comment sayes a lot about you.
OP was given a statement of fact - the money is not theirs
Debtor's jail was a joke
You don't seem to grasp what is being discussed here:
OP borrowed money - they had the cash and benefit from it
OP did not pay it back, so not only did they have the cash/benefit they had no "hit"
OP is now asking for a refund of money they didn't pay on top of the initial money they had
The OP has not had any "hit", they did not have the money before, they have not got the money now, there is literally no change except the knowledge that, morally, they are in the right as they have paid back more of the money they didn't pay backSam 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
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.1K Spending & Discounts
- 240.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 616.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.3K Life & Family
- 253.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards