Ppi dispute

[Deleted User]

I'll leave you to it...

Expired

Good idea son. Everyone is a Martin lewis in here, not.

[Deleted User]

Expired wrote: »

Everyone is a Martin lewis in here, not.

Lewis sold this site some years ago.

Expired

No wonder.

SonOf

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.

You made a complaint and they gave their outcome. There is nothing wrong with having PPI. You can still buy some types of PPI today (mainly mortgage PPI and standalone PPI as they are two of the good types). The whole issue is about the sales process.

For a complaint to succeed, the bank has to identify a failure or decide to auto-payout (and auto-payouts were very common at the peak of PPI complaining). Also, at the sort to the middle of the last 15 years of PPi complaining, the banks were not known for the quality of responses. However, towards the end, most of the banks have accepted the issue and treated complaints much more fairly. So, much so that the the FOS is now upholding only around a quarter of complaints. That is lower than the average of all complaints which actually indicates the banks are probably upholding complaints that they could reject.

sun73

Just out of interest, what is the FOS approach about credit agreements that were auto ticked by some lenders in the 1990’s ?

I had a successful PPI complaint about a credit card. The agreement was auto ticked in 1996 and the account closed in 2004.

SonOf

Just out of interest, what is the FOS approach about credit agreements that were auto ticked by some lenders in the 1990’s ?

The agreements wouldnt be auto-ticked but the application may have been.

the FOS generally dislike "tick to not have it". Only online ones could be auto-ticked and they usually uphold those.

However, after 15 years of PPI complaining, the lenders and the FOS know what applications were ticked to not have it or auto-ticked if online.

sun73

Sorry I meant to say pre ticked like the application/credit agreement sent to me in 1996 where the lender assumed I wanted to take out PPI at the time.

Not sure if that’s why my complaint was upheld but I have seen other credit applications from other lenders that were pre ticked before the customer signed. Did the FCA ban this practice or was it just the tick to opt out of PPI they banned?

SonOf

Sorry I meant to say pre ticked like the application/credit agreement sent to me in 1996 where the lender assumed I wanted to take out PPI at the time.

That is a really difficult one as how do you prove it was ticked before, during or after discussion.

Did the FCA ban this practice or was it just the tick to opt out of PPI they banned?

For electronic applications it was deemed inappropriate. However, for paper ones it is very difficult as you cannot untick a tick without it being very clear it was amended.

Even if it happened, it would be a difficult one to prove. Its one of those judgement call decisions made on the balance of probability that the borrower would hope there is another failure point to uphold it.

[Deleted User]

SonOf wrote: »

Even if it happened, it would be a difficult one to prove.

The other possibility was that the box was ticked by the bank employee and then signed by the customer with full knowledge that PPI was selected.

It's also possible that Sun 73 was sent a facsimile copy of "his" application form reconstituted by the Bank for SAR purposes. Depends how exactly the tick in question differs to his handwriting I suppose.

Certainly there were no pre-printed ticks on actual paper application forms. Online, though, there were pre-ticked boxes selecting PPI which the customer had to untick, it was these which the Regulator took exception to...