Ppi dispute

Expired

I have successfully complained ppi from at least half a dozen banks due to the fact that I received full sick pay and never consented to ppi insurance be it an application online or over telephone.

One recent bank in particular has rejected my complaint under Plevin as my account was closed beforehand in 2004.

They even sent me a letter stating that I had paid ppi but was not eligible to receive said ppi award.

Martin Lewis in one article stated that if you had an account up to 2006 where banks were receiving large fines for missold ppi then customers had the right to complain ppi.

Because of this information I progressed further with the ombudsman and forwarded the letter from bank.

The Ombudsman states that there was no case to answer as the bank had sent a scanned document seemingly with the ppi insurance box ticked.

I angrily responded stating hold on a minute, I have successfully complained against ppi insurance from half a dozen banks under the same circumstances that I have never agreed to ppi and received full sick pay, if the box was ticked then said scanned document has been doctored which is fraud.

I am now making a final appeal with ombudsman as the original appeal was only first level step with an adjudicator.

What is more suspicious is with my complaint with said bank their initial response was I was not eligible under the plevin rule, so why did they not mention originally that I had seemingly ticked ppi box and was not entitled to a ppi award.

It looks like they are trying their best not to pay out by any means even if it includes altering a customers application.

brettcta

In order for a PPI policy to eligible for Plevin it needs to meet strict criteria.
If the account was opened prior to 6 April 2007 it had to be open past 6 April 2008.

If the account was opened post 6 April 2007, it’s eligible.

The rules are different for mortgage accounts.

Re the ticking of a ‘Yes PPI’ box - You’re alleging fraud which is a very serious accusation. If you have proof that you never ticked a form and that the bank have ticked that afterwards, then you can pursue through the courts. You not remembering, however, isn’t evidence of fraud.

SonOf

One recent bank in particular has rejected my claim under Plevin as my account was closed beforehand in 2004.

Plevin relies on S140a of the consumer credit act 2006 (effective 2008).

So, as 2004 is before 2008, it does not qualify under plevin.

Martin Lewis in one article stated that if you had an account up to 2006 where banks were receiving large fines for missold ppi then customers had the right to claim ppi.

Plevin has nothing to do with misselling. It is a secondary issue that everyone missed for a number of years. I don't believe that there have been any fines issued to date in respect of Plevin.

I angrily responded stating hold on a minute, I have successfully claimed ppi insurance from half a dozen banks under the same circumstances that I have never agreed to ppi and received full sick pay, if the box was ticked then said scanned document has been doctored which is fraud.

What other banks may have chosen to do is completely irrelevent. Maybe those other banks auto-paid out. Maybe their PPI product didnt pay out in addition to sick pay (most do). Maybe the PPI covered different debts (for example, most loan PPI complaints succeed. Credit card is about 50% and most mortgage PPI complaints fail). PPI comes in different forms. Some is very poor. Some is very good. Some were sold with poor processes. Some were sold with good processes. Sometimes banks went through periods when they were poor but then improved.

I am now making a final appeal with ombudsman as the original appeal was only first level step with an adjudicator.

Which you are entitled to do but dont expect it to change. Statistically, its under 1 in 10 cases that get overruled and most of those are on complicated areas and not easy stuff like PPI.

What is more suspicious is with my claim with said bank their initial response was I was not eligible under the plevin rule, so why did they not mention originally that I had seemingly ticked ppi box and was not entitled to a ppi claim?

You may wish to read their response again. All rejected complaints are required to automatically assess it under plevin and state the outcome. So, your response should say why they rejected your complaint and then why they rejected plevin.

It looks like they are trying their best not to pay out by any means even if it includes altering a customers application.

That is an extremely serious allegation that can lead to imprisonment of the person involved. Then again, the bank has an application showing it ticked. They also had a credit agreement signed by you confirming it that would have shown the payment cost included on it.

[Deleted User]

Expired wrote: »

I angrily responded stating hold on a minute, I have successfully claimed ppi insurance from half a dozen banks under the same circumstances that I have never agreed to ppi and received full sick pay, if the box was ticked then said scanned document has been doctored which is fraud.

Getting angry and throwing about unsubstantiated accusations of criminality is not going to get you anywhere I'm afraid.

Since banks never reveal why they have upheld a PPI complaint, it's likely the other banks refunded your PPI for reasons which had little or nothing to do with the actual reasons you gave.

You'll therefore never know why the other Banks refunded you and you certainly can't use your success elsewhere as a bulwark against another Bank (or the Ombudsman).

If you seriously think (and have compelling evidence) that there was fraud you should be contacting the police, not making a mis-selling complaint...

The Ombudsman may yet uphold your complaint, but it's unlikely given that both the Bank and a FOS adjudicator have already rejected it...

-taff

Expired wrote: »

I have successfully claimed ppi from at least half a dozen banks due to the fact that I received full sick pay and never consented to ppi insurance be it an application online or over telephone.

Not a bulletproof complaint reason depending on the PPI.

Expired wrote: »

One recent bank in particular has rejected my claim under Plevin as my account was closed beforehand in 2004.

As they should because Plevin does not apply [ see replies above why not]

Expired wrote: »

They even sent me a letter stating that I had paid ppi but was not eligible to receive said claim.

You're not claiming, you're complaining. And this part of the letter has the rejection reason in it. What does it say?

Expired wrote: »

Martin Lewis in one article stated that if you had an account up to 2006 where banks were receiving large fines for missold ppi then customers had the right to claim ppi.

No. Customers have the right to complain about PPI, never ever claim...

Expired wrote: »

The Ombudsman states that there was no case to answer as the bank had sent a scanned document seemingly with the ppi insurance box ticked.
I angrily responded stating hold on a minute, I have successfully claimed ppi insurance from half a dozen banks under the same circumstances that I have never agreed to ppi and received full sick pay, if the box was ticked then said scanned document has been doctored which is fraud..

That's probably not what the ombudsman said, what exactly did they say?
You might have successfuly complained about PPI, but what one bank does, another may not. To me, it sounds as if you might have a pre regulation complaint...Who did you complain to?

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

To me, it sounds as if you might have a pre regulation complaint...

No access to FOS for pre-regulation complaints, of course.

Customer has clearly complained that the PPI was added without his knowledge or permission and the Bank have responded with signed documentation suggesting otherwise. The Customer refutes this evidence saying it is fraudulent.

Expired

Thanks for all the feedback guys, the ombudsman did respond saying they received a scanned document of the ppi box ticked and as evidence provided they decided not to continue my appeal, this was also confirmed over the telephone.

I do know about plevin, what I was trying to explain is that Martin Lewis stated that even companies who were being fined up to 2006 for the mis-selling of ppi and the fact at that timescale of my closed account in 2004 individuals could still make a complaint through ppi which I did through resolver and was successful with other complaints.

I was successful with one complaint for ppi under plevin.

I have every right to be angry as I have never agreed to ppi insurance.

So thank you for all of your responses, much appreciated,

I don’t hold out much hope for final appeal, but fingers crossed.

[Deleted User]

Expired wrote: »

companies who were being fined up to 2006 for the misspelling of ppi

That's pretty harsh. I mean, it's only three letters.

Expired

To Moneyinep you have clearly hit the nail on the head. I am a retired gentleman with over 20 years managerial experience who does not like being fobbed off with some scanned document that I seemingly ticked knowing that I have never agreed to ppi in my life.

So yes it is a serious matter that I will continue to pursue through the appeals process.

Anyone in my shoes would take the matter further through the ombudsman, as stated I have been using Resolver and have been successful with said ppi complaints.

So thank you for your response.

Expired

The iPad has a habit of auto correcting words incorrectly lol

Expired

It’s correct what they did say, scanned document was used as evidence against my appeal.