Alliance and Leicester ppi

13»

Comments

  • lee1972
    lee1972 Posts: 50
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    Yes you were.

    No I wasn’t.
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    PPI doesn't cover you being sacked, fairly logically as people would just take it out and get themselves chucked out and live off the PPI for as long as it paid out. It covers redundancy, sickness etc. That would have been explained on the PPI paperwork, not reading that doesn't mean it's a scam.

    Yes, but this wasn’t explained to me at the time despite me saying that my job was precarious. The agent certainly could have taken the time to explain this- it’s not like it would have taken long? When I was sacked I went to the bank they explained it to me and I realised that, of course, it didn’t apply if you were sacked. Even then I remember the guy getting the paper work out and checking it “just in case”. It was because of this incident that I decided I would never have PPI again- I’d sussed it was a scam. This is the reason I know that I was definitely not told that PPI was added to the loan which I’m discussing here- because I would have turned it down flat.
  • lee1972
    lee1972 Posts: 50
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 19 May 2019 at 9:48PM
    Months on, I simply remain unconvinced.

    Fine... So how can I convince you?

    I’ll restrict further comments about the other thread to the other thread from now on.

    Anyway, I’m watching GoT... TBC :)
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,631
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    lee1972 wrote: »
    No I wasn’t.


    No you really were. Even though PPI was not an advised sale, the money going out would be more than your loan if you didn't know about it which you'd have questioned on the first payment. 20 years ago is a long time, memories fade.


    You are alleging a bank staff member risked prison and the bank to receive huge fines by committing fraud by adding an insurance product onto your loan behind your back, even though you'd have discovered it on the very first loan repayment. Does that really sound logical to you? As opposed to you simply forgetting the exact details

    lee1972 wrote: »
    Yes, but this wasn’t explained to me at the time despite me saying that my job was precarious. The agent certainly could have taken the time to explain this- it’s not like it would have taken long? When I was sacked I went to the bank they explained it to me and I realised that, of course, it didn’t apply if you were sacked. Even then I remember the guy getting the paper work out and checking it “just in case”. It was because of this incident that I decided I would never have PPI again- I’d sussed it was a scam. This is the reason I know that I was definitely not told that PPI was added to the loan which I’m discussing here- because I would have turned it down flat.


    PPI is not a scam because it doesn't pay out for events which aren't covered. If you set your car on fire deliberately, would you expect your insurance to give you a new car just because the Meerkats didn't tell you that arson is illegal?
  • lee1972
    lee1972 Posts: 50
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Nasqueron wrote: »
    No you really were. Even though PPI was not an advised sale, the money going out would be more than your loan if you didn't know about it which you'd have questioned on the first payment. 20 years ago is a long time, memories fade.

    You are alleging a bank staff member risked prison and the bank to receive huge fines by committing fraud by adding an insurance product onto your loan behind your back, even though you'd have discovered it on the very first loan repayment. Does that really sound logical to you? As opposed to you simply forgetting the exact details

    PPI is not a scam because it doesn't pay out for events which aren't covered. If you set your car on fire deliberately, would you expect your insurance to give you a new car just because the Meerkats didn't tell you that arson is illegal?

    You make some good points and yes, it certainly is likely that I don’t remember events from 20 years ago.

    On the subject of PPI being a scam. The fact that millions of people have been refunded billions of pounds seems to suggest that something dishonest was going on don’t you think?

    The time I do remember agreeing to it, it certainly wasn’t explained properly to me as if it was I wouldn’t have taken it. I had occupational benefits which meant it was not necessary.
  • dunstonh
    dunstonh Posts: 116,040
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Forumite
    On the subject of PPI being a scam. The fact that millions of people have been refunded billions of pounds seems to suggest that something dishonest was going on don’t you think?

    Knife crime is rife in London. So, everyone that has a knife is a criminal and every knife should be confiscated?

    PPI is the product. The issues were with some of the distribution channels. You can still buy PPI today.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Nasqueron
    Nasqueron Posts: 8,631
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    lee1972 wrote: »
    On the subject of PPI being a scam. The fact that millions of people have been refunded billions of pounds seems to suggest that something dishonest was going on don’t you think?


    Refunds because of miss-selling, not the product being a scam. Many people have effectively committed fraud by pretending they didn't want it in order to get a refund, should they go to prison? Many people have PPI on their mortgages even today as it can be a good product.

    lee1972 wrote: »
    The time I do remember agreeing to it, it certainly wasn’t explained properly to me as if it was I wouldn’t have taken it. I had occupational benefits which meant it was not necessary.


    Already gone over this. PPI was not an advised sale and it was your responsibility to read the terms and conditions. Being sacked is not going to be covered for obvious reasons. If you were made redundant, what occupational benefits would you have had?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards