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
    • Roy1234
    • By Roy1234 10th Feb 13, 5:12 PM
    • 94Posts
    • 12Thanks
    Roy1234
    Reclaimimg 'Compulsory PPI' with RBS Mortgage
    • #1
    • 10th Feb 13, 5:12 PM
    Reclaimimg 'Compulsory PPI' with RBS Mortgage 10th Feb 13 at 5:12 PM
    In 1996 I took out a 100% RBS mortgage at an RBS branch. The Mortgage Advisor told me I had to have their PPI, due to the risk of the 100% product. No other PPI provider was suggested.

    I know this happened, but have no proof (a friend had an identical experience taking out a 100% RBS Mortgage around then).

    I was pretty skint back then but reluctantly paid up as the price (I thought) of getting accepted for the 100% loan. It now seems they should never have said this.

    Has anyone any relevant experience or info on my chances of reclaiming the PPI fees without proof?
Page 2
    • -taff
    • By -taff 11th Feb 13, 8:11 AM
    • 9,319 Posts
    • 10,566 Thanks
    -taff
    Yes, and your situation is completely different. You had a series of loans, not a mortgage.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 11th Feb 13, 8:44 AM
    • 96,942 Posts
    • 64,909 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I Had no proof , RBS asked me 7 questions



    Regards, Ste.
    Originally posted by Stekbwfc
    Yours was upheld because it was Loan PPI that was refinanced a number of times. That is one of the easiest PPI complaints going. A totally different scenario to the situation on this thread.
    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.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 11th Feb 13, 10:00 AM
    • 23,047 Posts
    • 12,542 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I Had no proof , RBS asked me 7 questions
    Originally posted by Stekbwfc
    As the circumstances of your complaint are entirely different to the originator of this thread, your post is irrelevant I'm afraid.

    Regardless, well done on your success.
    • Bun010169
    • By Bun010169 8th Aug 18, 11:42 AM
    • 1 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    Bun010169
    Rbs ppi
    Iím quite flabbergasted by the level of hostility towards the OP by some on this thread. If I didnít know better Iíd quite easily believe some of the responses have been written by people within the banking industry.

    The consumer isnít coming out of this smelling of roses I think someone said. Iím sorry but WHAT?!! Itís OK for the banks to knowingly Ďletís not beat about the bush hereí rip people off to the tune of billions but inappropriate for consumers to blindly (where proof is no longer available) attempt some kind of redress? It might well be in this case that the poster is mistaken about the type of product sold but I 100% back anyoneís attempt to try to reclaim something inappropriately sold.

    In a great many cases the magically calculated associated costs alone were borderline extortionate and mysteriously not disclosed as theyíd rightly be considered unfair. People have a right to at least try to fight their corner and claim back what was sold incorrectly, not needed, or excessively and therefore unfairly charged for.

    Speaking of proof, word of mouth often appears to be considered a perfectly legitimate defence for many lenders. Iíve received written responses from them telling me I agreed to something Ďyears agoí that I know full well I did not. No proof is ever given. You canít have it both ways.

    Having some knowledge of the processes involved in claiming I have noticed a shift in the approach and language used by lenders of late. Where some at least once seemed to hold their hands up and surprisingly sought a mutually beneficial resolution there now seems to be a very obvious air of unhelpfulness in negotiations and attempts to trip people up. New and numerous confusing questionnaires now have to be completed that didnít previously and within them the same questions are being asked but in a different way. Presumably in the hope the person complaining will fall foul of specific criteria known only to them freeing up a loop hole or way out.

    Lenders would not simply give up should you find yourself owing them money for whatever reason and neither should anyone who believes they purchased a PPI policy from one they might not have known about, needed, did not fully understand, may have over paid for, for which very little or no detail at all was provided, and so on.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 8th Aug 18, 12:11 PM
    • 96,942 Posts
    • 64,909 Thanks
    dunstonh
    You revived a 2013 thread for that?
    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.
    • campari
    • By campari 14th Jan 19, 3:45 PM
    • 22 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    campari
    Hi - how interesting these different views are. I am inclined to comment that I too have had lenders stating information as fact, without proof, and getting away with it. e.g., she agreed in a phone call... hmm, transcript please...oh sorry we don't have it anymore as its been more than 3 years. My main interest right now is this whole debate about MIG's or alternative names to same thing, yes, 'tis insurance for lender for risk, but I read somewhere that this whole issue about risk is taken onboard EITHER by MIG or inflated interest rate repayable, but not both. Also, noted that large commissions are payable for MIGs. Seems to me there are various 'opportunities' for double recovery where lenders charge consumers for both the policy cost, the interest over term (massive) and then add same to shortfall claims. Any thoughts?
    Last edited by campari; 14-01-2019 at 3:46 PM. Reason: typo
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 14th Jan 19, 3:57 PM
    • 96,942 Posts
    • 64,909 Thanks
    dunstonh
    I too have had lenders stating information as fact, without proof, and getting away with it. e.g., she agreed in a phone call... hmm, transcript please.
    Equally, what evidence exists that she didn't agree it?
    If she didnt agree it, then how long did she take to raise it with the provider? If it was within months, then that would be a highly credible complaint, even if there was no evidence. However, if we are talking decades later, that has no credibility.

    However, if we are talking about MIG, then there is no choice in the matter. You either had the mortgage with them or you didnt.

    Also, noted that large commissions are payable for MIGs.
    Anyone saying that is an issue is talking BS.

    Seems to me there are various 'opportunities' for double recovery where lenders charge consumers for both the policy cost, the interest over term (massive) and then add same to shortfall claims. Any thoughts?
    No opportunities whatsoever.
    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 14th Jan 19, 5:09 PM
    • 6,753 Posts
    • 4,195 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Hi - how interesting these different views are. I am inclined to comment that I too have had lenders stating information as fact, without proof, and getting away with it. e.g., she agreed in a phone call... hmm, transcript please...oh sorry we don't have it anymore as its been more than 3 years. My main interest right now is this whole debate about MIG's or alternative names to same thing, yes, 'tis insurance for lender for risk, but I read somewhere that this whole issue about risk is taken onboard EITHER by MIG or inflated interest rate repayable, but not both. Also, noted that large commissions are payable for MIGs. Seems to me there are various 'opportunities' for double recovery where lenders charge consumers for both the policy cost, the interest over term (massive) and then add same to shortfall claims. Any thoughts?
    Originally posted by campari

    The burden of proof is on the accuser


    The bank has a record that has a tick somewhere that says Mr A agreed to this on the phone. Mr A needs to prove he didn't agree to it. The bank aren't trying to prove anything, they have a record however many years old that says this. Given many PPI complaints are years, even decades after the event, there is little credibility in someone saying they didn't agree to a policy when they didn't complain the first time they got charged (or even when they signed the paperwork)
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 14th Jan 19, 5:50 PM
    • 23,047 Posts
    • 12,542 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    Yet another thread from years ago bumped up...
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

2,829Posts Today

6,700Users online

Martin's Twitter