Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again - MSE News

Former_MSE_Megan_F · 4 February 2019 at 6:36PM

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 haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

grumbler · 5 February 2019 at 9:47AM

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%?

dunstonh · 5 February 2019 at 9:52AM

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.

Nasqueron · 5 February 2019 at 10:29AM

grumbler wrote: »

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%?

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

PPI is fine, PPI miss-selling is not

grumbler · 5 February 2019 at 11:15AM

Nasqueron wrote: »

So what about people who wanted

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?

All_eBayed_Out · 5 February 2019 at 11:25AM

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 · 5 February 2019 at 11:34AM

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.

dunstonh · 5 February 2019 at 11:35AM

All_eBayed_Out wrote: »

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.

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.

grumbler · 5 February 2019 at 11:56AM

dunstonh wrote: »

Those that bought it themselves directly or via comparison sites.
Those that bought it for mortgage purposes

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

Bermonia · 5 February 2019 at 12:20PM

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 · 5 February 2019 at 12:31PM

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?

Up to 150,000 rejected PPI claimants to receive letters saying they can complain again - MSE News

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free