Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Megan F
    • By MSE Megan F 4th Feb 19, 4:36 PM
    • 395Posts
    • 197Thanks
    MSE Megan F
    Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again - MSE News
    • #1
    • 4th Feb 19, 4:36 PM
    Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again - MSE News 4th Feb 19 at 4:36 PM
    The financial watchdog has said that up to 150,000 PPI customers, whose mis-selling claims were previously rejected, should be written to and told that they can make a new complaint...
    Read the full story:
    'Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you havenít already, join the forum to reply.
    Read the latest MSE News
    Flag up a news story: news@moneysavingexpert.com
    Get the Free Martin's Money Tips E-mail
Page 1
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 7:47 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    • #2
    • 5th Feb 19, 7:47 AM
    • #2
    • 5th Feb 19, 7:47 AM
    Would it not be simpler just to return ALL PPI premiums ever paid?
    And then start investigation on all retailers selling products with margin higher than 67%?
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Feb 19, 7:52 AM
    • 98,267 Posts
    • 66,500 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #3
    • 5th Feb 19, 7:52 AM
    • #3
    • 5th Feb 19, 7:52 AM
    Would it not be simpler just to return ALL PPI premiums ever paid?
    No. Remember that there is nothing wrong with having PPI and some distribution channels have tiny uphold rates on complaints. You can still buy PPI today.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 5th Feb 19, 8:29 AM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 4,648 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #4
    • 5th Feb 19, 8:29 AM
    • #4
    • 5th Feb 19, 8:29 AM
    Would it not be simpler just to return ALL PPI premiums ever paid?
    And then start investigation on all retailers selling products with margin higher than 67%?
    Originally posted by grumbler

    So what about people who wanted it or even used it to claim?


    PPI is fine, PPI miss-selling is not
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 9:15 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    • #5
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:15 AM
    • #5
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:15 AM
    So what about people who wanted
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Define "wanted".
    Found the information about PPI themselves and asked their bank for it?
    it or even used it to claim?
    OK. Refund if no claim was made.
    PPI is fine, PPI miss-selling is not
    Again, define misselling.
    If it's that simple, why the goalposts keep getting moved?
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • All eBayed Out
    • By All eBayed Out 5th Feb 19, 9:25 AM
    • 1,294 Posts
    • 57,503 Thanks
    All eBayed Out
    • #6
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:25 AM
    • #6
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:25 AM
    They want us not to claim. I spent ages pulling all the information together to send to my claims company. After about 8 accounts being put forward I ended up with an offer of about £40 on one and told by all the others either they cant find my account or no i'm not entitled. Its a sham.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Feb 19, 9:34 AM
    • 98,267 Posts
    • 66,500 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #7
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:34 AM
    • #7
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:34 AM
    Define "wanted".
    Found the information about PPI themselves and asked their bank for it?
    Those that bought it themselves directly or via comparison sites.
    Those that bought it for mortgage purposes

    OK. Refund if no claim was made.
    What about those that have not had a claimable event but have a financial need and want for it?

    Again, define misselling.
    If it's that simple, why the goalposts keep getting moved?
    This thread is not about a moving goalpost. it is about a flukey change that the FCA themselves didnt notice at the time and didnt adjust their rules on. This issue is not about misselling.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Feb 19, 9:35 AM
    • 98,267 Posts
    • 66,500 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #8
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:35 AM
    • #8
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:35 AM
    They want us not to claim. I spent ages pulling all the information together to send to my claims company. After about 8 accounts being put forward I ended up with an offer of about £40 on one and told by all the others either they cant find my account or no i'm not entitled. Its a sham.
    Originally posted by All eBayed Out
    Indeed claims companies are a bit of a sham.

    They got you doing all the work and would have happily take their cut had you been paid out.

    If they could not find any info, then they have to use any info you have available. So, you could always supply your records.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 9:56 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    • #9
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:56 AM
    • #9
    • 5th Feb 19, 9:56 AM
    Those that bought it themselves directly or via comparison sites.
    Those that bought it for mortgage purposes
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Strange definition of this word.
    What about those that have not had a claimable event but have a financial need and want for it?
    Again, "need" is far too vague term.
    This thread is not about a moving goalpost.
    IMO it IS.
    "Last year, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began consulting on new guidance on how firms should decide if a customer with payment protection insurance (PPI) has been treated unfairly, and it has now given clarification that means more customers can try to reclaim."

    And, I guess, all this is because of using such vague terms as "wanted", "needed" etc.
    The amount of money wasted on this campaign with changing rules is so huge, that I really think it would be cheaper for all of us just heave the money simply returned
    Last edited by grumbler; 05-02-2019 at 10:07 AM.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • Bermonia
    • By Bermonia 5th Feb 19, 10:20 AM
    • 660 Posts
    • 502 Thanks
    Bermonia
    Let’s be honest... most PPI polices were NOT mis-sold at the time of selling as most lenders adhered to the rules and regulations set out to them - yet it’s has been decided that they need to have adhered to guidelines that have only recently been made up - wouldn’t be acceptable in most scenarios, even the law is only considered on basis of ‘law’ at time of an event.

    And let’s also make it clear that PPI was not also wanted by many people but was also often a prudent decision given that most people receive little or no sick pay and those who are borrowing often have no savings to fall back on should the worse happen.

    Grumbler by name, Grumbler by nature eh?!
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Feb 19, 10:31 AM
    • 98,267 Posts
    • 66,500 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Strange definition of this word.
    What word?
    Again, "need" is far too vague term.
    No its not. People have a need for buildings insurance, life assurance etc. Just because they have not claimed, does not mean the need doesnt exist.

    IMO it IS.
    "Last year, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) began consulting on new guidance on how firms should decide if a customer with payment protection insurance (PPI) has been treated unfairly, and it has now given clarification that means more customers can try to reclaim."
    Its not moving goalpost. It doesnt have anything to do with missale complaints. It is an additional issue.

    The amount of money wasted on this campaign with changing rules is so huge, that I really think it would be cheaper for all of us just heave the money simply returned
    And who is going to pay for all that money refunded on all the good PPI plans set up?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 5th Feb 19, 10:50 AM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 4,648 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Define "wanted".
    Originally posted by grumbler

    The people who ticked a box to say they wanted it, the people who were offered it and signed to say they wanted it, the people who sought it out and bought it. Just because millions of people have seen the £££ and lied about not wanting it doesn't mean they didn't when they took it out.



    Found the information about PPI themselves and asked their bank for it?
    Originally posted by grumbler

    Not sure what you're asking here - PPI details were always provided by the seller and the person agreed to it. Them not reading Ts & Cs or not understanding it doesn't miss-selling.



    OK. Refund if no claim was made.
    Originally posted by grumbler

    I don't get a refund of my car insurance if I don't claim on it. I don't have a refund of mobile phone cover if I don't use it.



    Again, define misselling.
    Originally posted by grumbler

    1) Single premium PPI where the PPI was added to the loan so you paid interest on that as well
    2) Opt-out PPI where someone online had to actively choose NOT to have it
    3) PPI that would not have covered the person (part time worker for example or if they had a pre-existing medical issue severe enough to ensure they wouldn't get a payout or for self-employed where the terms on claiming were too onerous e.g. having to shut your business)


    NOT
    1) Buyers remorse decades after
    2) People pretending to not want it



    If it's that simple, why the goalposts keep getting moved?
    Originally posted by grumbler

    PPI miss-selling only became a major thing because of the FSA (at the time) decided that current selling rules should apply retrospectively - that's the big moving the goal posts. This happened in the case BBA v FSA and FOS, 20 April 2011



    The only changes have been to give more help to consumers e.g. Plevin complaints
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 10:58 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    What word?
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    "wanted"
    No its not. People have a need for buildings insurance, life assurance etc.
    OK. I have £1M saved and live in a £100K house that I own. Do I need building insurance or not? Is there a definite answer to this question?
    Its not moving goalpost. It doesnt have anything to do with missale complaints. It is an additional issue.
    I don't get it.
    more customers can try to reclaim
    And I guess, those, whose claims were rejected, can claim again?

    And who is going to pay for all that money refunded on all the good PPI plans set up?
    My impression is that this is almost negligible minority.*
    And do we really know how much was wasted of bureaucrats, bank employees handling the complaints and on PPI parasites?
    For the latter I am not sure whether they cost us extra, or just get the money from the people who couldn't care less in the past and can't care less now about the PPI they had.


    *ETA
    Have you been Plevined? A new rule means just having had PPI means most were mis-sold



    Plevin is a newish mis-selling category of PPI. It pretty much means that if you got a loan or credit card from a bank or building society, you were mis-sold PPI.
    For years, we've been shouting "Have you been mis-sold PPI?" but now – with this new rule – we're yelling "Have you simply had PPI?" Even if you knew what you were doing, you were likely mis-sold it.
    by MSE
    Last edited by grumbler; 05-02-2019 at 11:05 AM.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 5th Feb 19, 11:04 AM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 4,648 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    OK. I have £1M saved and live in a £100K house that I own. Do I need building insurance or not? Is there a definite answer to this question?
    Originally posted by grumbler

    If your negligence caused damages to 10 houses also worth 100k then yes. Would you want to use all your savings to payout?


    Realistically, everyone needs BUILDING insurance (it may well be a condition of the mortgage), they may choose not to have contents and let's be honest, if you live in a 100k house you don't have £1m in the bank unless you won the lottery and chose not to move.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 5th Feb 19, 11:08 AM
    • 23,610 Posts
    • 12,942 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    My impression is that this is almost negligible minority.
    Originally posted by grumbler
    Your "impression" is not backed up by the hard evidence. Although there was certainly a massive PPI mis-selling scandal, many bought the insurance willingly and subsequently benefitted from a legitimate claim.

    There is an argument that PPI was generally expensive and poor value for money, but that is not a valid mis-selling complaint.
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 11:16 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    If your negligence caused damages to 10 houses also worth 100k then yes. Would you want to use all your savings to payout?


    Realistically, everyone needs BUILDING insurance (it may well be a condition of the mortgage), they may choose not to have contents and let's be honest, if you live in a 100k house you don't have £1m in the bank unless you won the lottery and chose not to move.
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    Do you call this a definite answer?

    Theoretically a skint student-cyclist can kill somebody, not to mention injure. It's impossible to insure everything.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 5th Feb 19, 11:41 AM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 4,648 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Do you call this a definite answer?

    Theoretically a skint student-cyclist can kill somebody, not to mention injure. It's impossible to insure everything.
    Originally posted by grumbler

    Yes it is, a mortgage provider insists you have some form of buildings insurance QED you must have it or you don't get a mortgage or are in breach of the mortgage conditions.


    A student can get cycling club membership or British Cycling (or equivalent) for £30 or less and get third party liability.


    It's largely moot anyway as it's not what we are talking about


    PPI was either optional or may have been required (e.g. via a broker to avoid paying a fee) or it could even have been a condition of the mortgage. If someone agreed to take it out by signing an agreement or actively sought it out, then yes they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they could have refused it.


    Don't forget, the PPI industry has been filled with sharks and liars, consumers in particular claiming they were miss-sold because they want ££. I believe from Dunstonh's numbers, something like 50% of complaints going to the FOS about miss-selling in recent times were from people who never even had it, yet none are prosecuted for fraud
    • grumbler
    • By grumbler 5th Feb 19, 11:58 AM
    • 51,706 Posts
    • 21,931 Thanks
    grumbler
    Yes it is, a mortgage provider insists
    Originally posted by Nasqueron
    What provider?
    I ... live in a £100K house that I own.
    Originally posted by grumbler
    A student can get cycling club membership or British Cycling (or equivalent) for £30 or less and get third party liability.
    The question was about need, not can
    PPI was either optional or may have been required (e.g. via a broker to avoid paying a fee) or it could even have been a condition of the mortgage. If someone agreed to take it out by signing an agreement or actively sought it out, then yes they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they could have refused it.
    Would it not be more correct to say "signed/ticked" then instead of "wanted"?
    It was my point that such words have to be avoided.
    Don't forget, the PPI industry has been filled with sharks and liars, consumers in particular claiming they were miss-sold because they want ££. I believe from Dunstonh's numbers, something like 50% of complaints going to the FOS about miss-selling in recent times were from people who never even had it, yet none are prosecuted for fraud
    With this I agree absolutely and hold our beloved FSA and lawmakers responsible for this. Now we all pay for their incompetence.
    We are born naked, wet and hungry...Then things get worse.

    .withdrawal, NOT withdrawel ..bear with me, NOT bare with me
    .definitely, NOT definately ......separate, NOT seperate
    should have, NOT should of
    .....guaranteed, NOT guarenteed
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 5th Feb 19, 12:57 PM
    • 7,377 Posts
    • 4,648 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    What provider?
    Originally posted by grumbler

    Pretty much every mortgage provider will insist you have buildings insurance on condition of getting the mortgage. It would be easier to name those who do not (if that is any at all). At times it was mandatory to have life insurance or MIG for example. Lenders are not charities, if they insist on you having xyz to get the loan, you have xyz or no loan - they are allowed to do this. Now they cannot insist you buy through them but can still demand you have it


    The question was about need, not can
    Originally posted by grumbler


    Question was irrelevant to this debate


    Would it not be more correct to say "signed/ticked" then instead of "wanted"? It was my point that such words have to be avoided.
    Originally posted by grumbler

    If they ticked a box to say they agreed to take it out, it can only be inferred that they wanted it. If they didn't want it, they tick a box saying they didn't, or indeed, not tick the box. Similarly if they didn't want it, and the seller tried to include it, they could just refuse to sign for it. Playing around with semantics doesn't somehow change the facts.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 5th Feb 19, 1:11 PM
    • 10,070 Posts
    • 13,349 Thanks
    -taff
    It's nice to know people can still be pedantic about absolutely nothing. Yes you need buildings insurance if the mortgage provider requires it, No you don't have to have it if you own your house outright but if the house burned down, you'd better have eough in savings to cover it.


    Any more spurious arguments?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,336Posts Today

6,579Users online

Martin's Twitter