We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
MSE News: Claim PPI now as banks call for deadline
Options
Comments
-
foundationsmcr wrote: »If everyone who is claiming back were at some point made unemployed, you can bet there would be a very different attitude towards reclaiming, as we'd have some firm figures on the number of people rejected when they attempted to USE the product as it was intended.
I had this many years ago.
I was unemployed for about 6 months and the credit card companies would not let me claim on PPI because the accounts were in arrears which had to be cleared first which I could not afford. They wouldn't even pay the monthly instalment on the balance and let me pay on the arrears, i.e. they pay 5% of the balance and I pay 5% of the arrears as the monthly instalment.0 -
You being arrears of course invalidates any claim on your policy. It's in the terms and conditions and certainly won't aid you in any claim for mis-selling.I was unemployed for about 6 months and the credit card companies would not let me claim on PPI because the accounts were in arrears which had to be cleared first which I could not afford. They wouldn't even pay the monthly instalment on the balance and let me pay on the arrears, i.e. they pay 5% of the balance and I pay 5% of the arrears as the monthly instalment.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »You being arrears of course invalidates any claim on your policy. It's in the terms and conditions and certainly won't aid you in any claim for mis-selling.
Can you let me have those terms and conditions? I didn't know that.
Does that mean I can't make any claims
0 -
-
Moneyineptitude wrote: »I'm not your Bank.
Contact your lender for T&Cs
But you seem to know that it's in the terms and conditions .....
So you're guessing?0 -
No, if you are in arrears then you'll no longer be fully covered by any insurance policy.So you're guessing?
Obvious really,as evidenced by your credit card company refusing to payout on the insurance while you remained in arrears.
I don't keep or have access to copies of T&Cs.
As I said, I'm not a bank.0 -
And no bank is an insurance company ... but plenty of banks decided it was a good idea to buy insurance companies and start weaving them into their little games.Moneyineptitude wrote: »No, if you are in arrears then you'll no longer be fully covered by any insurance policy.
Obvious really,as evidenced by your credit card company refusing to payout on the insurance while you remained in arrears.
I don't keep or have access to copies of T&Cs.
As I said, I'm not a bank.
Get thee gone bank lover :mad:0 -
You brought it up, not meangeleyes99 wrote: »I don't really have to explain or justify comments I have made on here to anyone, especially since my 'adequate cover' or lack of it is not the subject matter under discussion
That is significant partly because it predates regulation and partly because in the early 1990s there are a number of deals which DID require a borrower to take out Accident Sickness and Unemployment cover.We're talking 22 years agoshould he be made redundant, those were the days of very generous redundancy packages which would have enabled us to pay the loan off.
The problem with that is that they are only ever a statement of intention, not a guarantee. Regardless of what an employer says it would intend to pay it is never guaranteed (if it is then the entire payment is taxable - otherwise only the first £30,000 is tax free).
And whether it is contractual or not, if the employer goes bust you will only get statutory redundancy payments which at best well be measured in hundreds, rather than thousands, of pounds - ask the former employees of Blockbuster Video, HMV, Jessops, Comet etc.0 -
I think this is a good idea, the amount of people who have a crystal clear recollection of a sale that took place several years ago is incredible, once we get all of these peoples complaints out of the way there has to be some way as a country we could put their talents to work fixing the economy!
As mentioned above, a time limit would be good for banks, the amount of time and money being put aside to redress customers is surely affecting the public more than the original issue.
On the other hand, I'll be out of a job when its over (i work for a bank, not a cmc!), so hopefully it lasts just a little bit longer!!!!!!!My username refers to my enthusiasm for 'asking the stupid question' I don't think you're stupid!0 -
magpiecottage wrote: »You brought it up, not me
That is significant partly because it predates regulation and partly because in the early 1990s there are a number of deals which DID require a borrower to take out Accident Sickness and Unemployment cover.
The problem with that is that they are only ever a statement of intention, not a guarantee. Regardless of what an employer says it would intend to pay it is never guaranteed (if it is then the entire payment is taxable - otherwise only the first £30,000 is tax free).
And whether it is contractual or not, if the employer goes bust you will only get statutory redundancy payments which at best well be measured in hundreds, rather than thousands, of pounds - ask the former employees of Blockbuster Video, HMV, Jessops, Comet etc.
Moneyineptitude advised me to ignore posts such as the above, which are unsolicited.
Keep the thread on topic please
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 12 Election 2024: The MSE Leaders' Debate
- 344.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 450.1K Spending & Discounts
- 236.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 609.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.6K Life & Family
- 248.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards