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@.

    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 5:57 PM
    • 278Posts
    • 207Thanks
    PPI Commission on old secured loans re: Plevin?
    • #1
    • 3rd Mar 18, 5:57 PM
    PPI Commission on old secured loans re: Plevin? 3rd Mar 18 at 5:57 PM
    We made a complaint about PPI on an old secured loan in 2017, the bank also found several products we'd had over the years with PPI and put through a complaint on all of them together, apart from a couple of still active ones that I asked them not to.

    They found 5 secured loans and 'upheld' the complaint on the first one chronologically and 'defended' the later four. Because the 5 loans were basically daisy chained - as we almost paid off one, we took another and paid off the previous one and kept the balance etc. Consequently, the payout comprised of some very complicated compound interest through the loans, resulting in a decent payout which we were happy with and filed it away as job done. I heard about Plevin but never gave it another thought as I didn't think it applied to us - I thought that our PPI journey was well and truly over.

    We've just got another letter with that complaint number referenced, apologising for how long it is all taking, but they're to revisit the commission paid and hope to respond by the middle of the year.

    I've dug out the loan nos. etc. and found some of the paperwork and these 4 later loans were between 1997 and 2002. As I understand it, Plevin pertains to loans taken before 6th April 2007, but still active on 6th April 2008?

    So am I right in assuming that only any of these 4 'defended' loans still going in April 2008 might be looked into? Which I think is only the latest one of them, but of course, that's the one I haven't found the papers for just yet.

    Each of the earlier loan agreement documents state: "We will keep any commission which we get in connection with any insurance which we arrange".

    Would the fact that the loan paperwork admits to receiving commission mean it's a non-starter, or is that wording vague enough to mean that if the commission was high, it might still pay out? I suspect it's only one loan and won't be much anyway, but if it's a non-starter, I'll just file it away and forget about it.
Page 2
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 12th Mar 18, 4:36 PM
    • 278 Posts
    • 207 Thanks
    To which I can only respond....perhaps.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    I'd pretty much come to that myself, but wondered if there was a known format, as it's a slightly different beast than a PPI complaint.

    I shall go back to forgetting about it until they write again.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 13th Mar 18, 7:46 PM
    • 278 Posts
    • 207 Thanks
    I'm going to update this, because I personally hate it when I search for information and a thread that turns up that's of interest doesn't post any conclusion. I'd downloaded the FCA Guidance on PPI complaints (I think there's a slightly later Handbook for financial companies) from March 2017 and I've been skimming it when hanging on the phone etc. and found the pertinent bits on redress - in case it helps someone else.

    It states that the three key elements of redress are:
    1. The difference between the commission the customer paid and the tipping point of 50% of the premium paid
    2. Historic interest paid on this portion of the premium
    3. Annual simple interest at 8% on the sum of 1 + 2.

    In respect of claims made during the life of the policy and whether or not these should be deducted from redress, it states:
    a subsequent successful claim on the policy does not, after the event, correct the unfair relationship under s.140A that was created at point of sale by the non-disclosure of the high commission, and so, unlike in our existing approach to redress at Step 1 in DISP App 3, the claim should not be reflected in (reduce) redress at Step 2.
    So that suggests that the value of any successful claim during the life of the qualifying policy would not be deducted in the same manner as they are with PPI mis-selling complaints.

    Therefore the bank must think the latest of my loans may yield some redress when they get to assess it, hence writing to me about it.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 2nd May 18, 3:18 PM
    • 278 Posts
    • 207 Thanks
    I just wanted to update this thread. We've got a letter today with another complicated series of tables and calculations over many pages and it looks like it has been looked at afresh for all of the loans and we have a new redress amount.

    I was slightly incorrect in my earlier posts when I said they upheld the complaint with the first of 5 loans and how it carried through the subsequent 4 consolidating loans - it transpires that the first didn't have PPI was disregarded from the outset, it was the 2nd of the 5 chronologically that generated the earlier redress - so only 4 were ever considered, I just mis-remembered the letter when I posted here.

    I thought that only the latest one would qualify for a Plevin payout on dates, but it looks like an 'unfair relationship' payout on loans 2 and 3 and PPI redress now for loans 4 and 5, minus what we already had, less some claims, so we're now in line for a decent further redress.

    As Moneyineptitude suggested earlier in the thread, it looks like it has been totally re-assessed and the new redress is more in line with what it maybe should have been, which is truly a bonus at a time when one is very welcome.
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

3,274Posts Today

5,507Users online

Martin's Twitter