Need advice 9 March 2022 at 6:14PM in Reclaim PPI & other insurance 5 replies 131 views

Teaboys

Hi, in 1986 I took out a loan with NatWest. I made several attempts to claim ppi as I knew they sold me ppi because they said I couldn't have the loan unless I signed to have it although I didn't want it. Eventually after telling me I never had ppi they wrote to me out of the blue to tell me that I did have it, and I was awarded a sum of money. I was then told as the loan had arrears the awarded money would go towards the arrears. I tried to explain that as I was self employed at the time, NatWest told me that if I ever fell out of work the ppi would pay the loan. I fell out of work and was unable to meet the payments and then made a claim against the ppi to be told it didn't cover unemployment. I made some minimum payments but then couldn't afford that and stopped paying and then never heard anything. I argued that the loan should've been paid by the ppi as sold to me so therefore there shouldn't be any arrears and the sum awarded should be mine, am I just being stupid or am I correct?? The Ombudsman didn't help me either. Just need some advice if I can take this further??

Regards 

Roy

[Deleted User]

If you complained and had redress, then it means your PPI effectively never existing.  They can set off your redress against what you owe them.

You can't then argue that you wanted the PPI and expect it to pay out.

Teaboys

My argument is that I always had ppi and they eventually admitted that in writing and the ppi was there to pay the loan if I was out of work, but at the time I claimed to get the loan paid they changed the goalposts and then said it didn't cover unemployment. That's not how it was sold to me, therefore if it had done as it should have there obviously wouldn't be arrears and the awarded amount would rightly be mine.

kaMelo

Teaboys said:

My argument is that I always had ppi and they eventually admitted that in writing and the ppi was there to pay the loan if I was out of work, but at the time I claimed to get the loan paid they changed the goalposts and then said it didn't cover unemployment. That's not how it was sold to me, therefore if it had done as it should have there obviously wouldn't be arrears and the awarded amount would rightly be mine.

But even if they had paid out when you made a claim on the policy, any redress payments you were entitled to would be reduced by the amount they had paid out as part of your claim. The maximum redress you can receive is all your premiums refunded with statutory interest.
You can't have all your premiums repaid (as if the policy never existed) and also the pay-out from a now non existent policy.

As to where you can go now. The ombudsman has found in the banks favour therefore the only option available to you is legal action in court.

brettcta

kaMelo said:

Teaboys said:

My argument is that I always had ppi and they eventually admitted that in writing and the ppi was there to pay the loan if I was out of work, but at the time I claimed to get the loan paid they changed the goalposts and then said it didn't cover unemployment. That's not how it was sold to me, therefore if it had done as it should have there obviously wouldn't be arrears and the awarded amount would rightly be mine.

But even if they had paid out when you made a claim on the policy, any redress payments you were entitled to would be reduced by the amount they had paid out as part of your claim. The maximum redress you can receive is all your premiums refunded with statutory interest.
You can't have all your premiums repaid (as if the policy never existed) and also the pay-out from a now non existent policy.

[b]As to where you can go now. The ombudsman has found in the banks favour therefore the only option available to you is legal action in court.[/b]

This is correct but in your instance I honestly wouldn’t bother as you’re onto a non-starter due to the reasons stated previously.

accept it and move on with your life, you’ll be happier in the long run.

dunstonh

 I argued that the loan should've been paid by the ppi as sold to me so therefore there shouldn't be any arrears and the sum awarded should be mine, am I just being stupid or am I correct?

You are not stupid but you are wrong.

You didn't actually end up paying the PPI as you defaulted.   So, you are asking for a refund for something you didn't pay.

Look it another way.  You were self employed.  So, you understand about customers being billed and customers paying or not paying.   Say you did a job which cost £5000 and had a £500 bolt on for something extra.    That customer fails to pay the £5500 and only pays £1000.    You are £4500 out of pocket.  Then nearly 40 years later, that customer says that £500 was missold and you should refund them.    You tell them that you will refund the £500 but as the person only ever paid £1000 of the £5500 bill, you will offset it against the outstanding bill.

That is both logical and correct.    And in terms of PPI redress, the FCA allow redress to go against arrears, defaults and amounts previously written off as part of an agreement.   

My argument is that I always had ppi and they eventually admitted that in writing and the ppi was there to pay the loan if I was out of work, but at the time I claimed to get the loan paid they changed the goalposts and then said it didn't cover unemployment.

Banks nearly always automatically uphold PPI complaints where the person failed to repay the debt.    There is no point rejecting it as it doesn't cost them any more by rejecting or upholding it in terms of redress.   It actually costs less by upholding it due to administration and regulatory costs.     So, the fact they are upholding the complaint is irrelevant.    And Natwests ASU of that era did cover the self employed.  However, you had to cease trading. Stop paying class 2 NI and sign on at the job centre and successfully qualify for unemployment benefit.    If you didn't do those things, then a claim would be rejected.      But that is all irrelevant now.

It is highly unusual and unexpected for a 1986 policy to actually have been upheld as it predates the misselling period and is before the time that bank staff were given sales targets and put under pressure.  So, they are likely upholding it for the fact you defaulted.