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
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 5:57 PM
    • 273Posts
    • 204Thanks
    BooJewels
    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 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 3rd Mar 18, 6:25 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 3rd Mar 18, 6:25 PM
    • #2
    • 3rd Mar 18, 6:25 PM
    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?
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    Since Plevin refers solely to undisclosed (not "high") commission charges, I think it's clear that those loans are unlikely to be eligible for a Plevin refund. The wording also seems plain and in no way "vague".

    However, since the Bank have written to you saying that they will review your complaint, that's cause for optimism.

    So don't give up hope yet.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 6:52 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    • #3
    • 3rd Mar 18, 6:52 PM
    • #3
    • 3rd Mar 18, 6:52 PM
    Since Plevin refers solely to undisclosed (not "high") commission charges, I think it's clear that those loans are unlikely to be eligible for a Plevin refund. The wording also seems plain and in no way "vague".
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    By 'vague' I simply meant they didn't specify how much commission or a percentage etc. You wouldn't know from that if it was a tenner or a grand. But, as you say, it is clearly disclosed. I need to dig out the paperwork to the more pertinent, most recent, loan, see if that's the same. Seems unlikely that it will differ.

    However, since the Bank have written to you saying that they will review your complaint, that's cause for optimism.
    I think it sounds like a very long shot (and it was totally unexpected), so I shan't be holding my breath, but I could do with a little bit of good luck just now.

    Your input it appreciated, thank you.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 8:02 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    • #4
    • 3rd Mar 18, 8:02 PM
    • #4
    • 3rd Mar 18, 8:02 PM
    I've now found the documents for the other loans and the pertinent one from 2002 was still running until 2013, when we paid it off by consolidating the mortgage when an under performing endowment matured. The paperwork does have that same wording about commission, so it seems very unlikely that we have any sort of valid claim, so I'm not sure why they'd waste a stamp actually sending this letter. But they've done some weird stuff over the years, so who knows.

    Just out of curiosity, when they do pay out on loans like this, am I correct in thinking that it is a repayment of any commission over and above 50% of your total PPI fees, plus 8% interest? So if the bank received 67% commission (I think I read Dunston put this as a typical bank amount), the customer would get 17% of the total PPI, plus 8% interest?

    Is it the total PPI on the whole term of the loan - or just what you actually paid, if the loan was paid off early, as in our case? If that were the case, I think it would end up about 350-ish very loosely on this loan. I shan't got spending it though, as it sounds extremely unlikely.
    • amersall
    • By amersall 3rd Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    • 15,251 Posts
    • 18,853 Thanks
    amersall
    • #5
    • 3rd Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    • #5
    • 3rd Mar 18, 8:23 PM
    If 4 loans were defended by the bank, how did you get the PPI back that included what was carried over to these loans from the original, or, have I read it wrong?.

    Plevin is about commission, it has nothing to do with the PPI, if you had redress for the PPI, they owe you nothing as you had all the PPI and interest back.

    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 9:00 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    • #6
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:00 PM
    • #6
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:00 PM
    I thought that I'd explained it in the OP, but perhaps not clearly enough. We had 5 loans over about 20 years. We had a PPI settlement paid on the first of those chronologically, but because each subsequent loan was used to pay off the previous one, the bank concluded that our subsequent borrowing was increased due to that first additional payment for PPI. I have a document with several pages of tables with numbers carried forward through each loan. A lot of small amounts, but they added up.

    The later 4 loans didn't result in any direct payments for PPI, they were defended.

    I do understand that Plevin is about commission, I thought my previous posts would illustrate that I do grasp that. I'm not claiming under Plevin, not stating that I have any entitlement to do so, but the bank have written to me out of the blue, using the complaint reference in respect of these 5 loans, saying that they're looking at all complaints where "the level of commission received by the Bank was not disclosed to customers during the PPI sale" I was merely seeking clarification of the criteria for these Plevin payouts.

    I don't think it's likely to come to anything, but I wanted to understand it better. If I'm right, it will only apply to the last of those 5 loans anyway, date-wise. I'm interested to see that word 'level' in the letter, I'd missed that initially.
    • amersall
    • By amersall 3rd Mar 18, 9:23 PM
    • 15,251 Posts
    • 18,853 Thanks
    amersall
    • #7
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:23 PM
    • #7
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:23 PM
    Usually when you have loans that repaid the previous loans each time, you would have had a rebate of the PPI but you would have repaid the remaining PPI back in the settlement figure, that you paid back with the next loan and so on, this is a reason for mis sell.

    If they have been repaid "amounts back" for each loan, they should all have been "mis sold" not just the first one and you not given "bits" from each subsequent one, that was what I don't understand and wondered why they did that.

    You said
    I have a document with several pages of tables with numbers carried forward through each loan. A lot of small amounts, but they added up
    What were these amounts for and did you get them paid back to you?.

    Have I still got it wrong?.

    • amersall
    • By amersall 3rd Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    • 15,251 Posts
    • 18,853 Thanks
    amersall
    • #8
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    • #8
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:33 PM
    You are correct in what you said with Plevin and commission.
    If the other loans were not upheld, they really should have been, you deserve to get something from this. Fingers crossed.

    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 3rd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #9
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    • #9
    • 3rd Mar 18, 9:42 PM
    Have I still got it wrong?.
    Originally posted by amersall
    I think so. The OP had a consolidation chain of loans which, unusually, had the original loan PPI complaint upheld and the subsequent ones rejected. So he's had a refund of the original PPI amount plus interest and (I assume) any associated interest carried over to the subsequent loans.

    Now, out of the blue, the Bank have written to say they are considering the other four loans for a possible Plevin refund of undisclosed commission


    Like you I suspect, if this were now I'd be recommending the OP to go to the Ombudsman with the original complaint result as I think he should have received back all the PPI spread over all the loans.

    However, he's obviously too late to do this now well more than six months after the original complaint was considered.
    Last edited by Moneyineptitude; 03-03-2018 at 9:49 PM. Reason: undisclosed commission
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 9:47 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    I can't claim to understand their workings out, it looked very complicated, but it added up to significantly more than we expected and it was paid and I've spent it.

    I didn't expect anything, so what we got was very much a bonus. I'd rung about a mortgage policy initially and they offered to look at these 5 loans that I'd actually forgotten about, so it seems churlish to complain that I didn't get enough.

    It'll be interesting to see how this might play out.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 3rd Mar 18, 9:56 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    I think so. The OP had a consolidation chain of loans which, unusually, had the original loan PPI complaint upheld and the subsequent ones rejected. So he's had a refund of the original PPI amount plus interest and (I assume) any associated interest carried over to the subsequent loans.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    That's about the measure of it. I'm a she by the way.

    Like you I suspect, if this were now I'd be recommending the OP to go to the Ombudsman with the original complaint result as I think he should have received back all the PPI spread over all the loans.
    That's a shame, but I didn't expect anything and got 1200, so I don't think I have grounds to be bitter about it.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 3rd Mar 18, 10:04 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    I didn't expect anything and got 1200, so I don't think I have grounds to be bitter about it.
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    My own redress on five loans amounted to 20K, the majority of which was interest, so you can see that you may well have lost out considerably.

    I'm not saying your complaint was as cut and dried as mine was, because I don't know exactly why the Bank "defended" the other four loans or the circumstances you were sold PPI on the remaining loans. However, were you to have posted about this result today, I'd be recommending that you refer your complaint to the Ombudsman.
    I'd rung about a mortgage policy initially and they offered to look at these 5 loans that I'd actually forgotten about, so it seems churlish to complain that I didn't get enough.
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    It's too late for you to act now, but there was a time when PPI front loaded onto a consolidation chain of loans was a guaranteed multiple win. My own win is a textbook example of this.

    It's certainly not "churlish" therefore , to want and expect a full (not partial) refund of mis-sold PPI.

    Of course, we are not privy to the full details of your loans and the fact that the final one was still being paid off as recently as 2013 indicates that the subsequent PPI may well have been paid separately to the loan rather than as a single premium.

    Regardless, good luck with your Plevin refund..
    Last edited by Moneyineptitude; 03-03-2018 at 10:06 PM.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 4th Mar 18, 8:34 AM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    My own redress on five loans amounted to 20K, the majority of which was interest, so you can see that you may well have lost out considerably.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Congratulations. A quick tot up would suggest that I could have added a zero to my payout had it all been payable, but I'm not entirely convinced it would have happened that way, so I need to forget about it and not feel like I've lost out. I was happy with it before and I need to stay that way. I looked at the date of the letter and it was a year ago on Friday, so that ship has well and truly sailed.

    Since Plevin refers solely to undisclosed (not "high") commission charges, I think it's clear that those loans are unlikely to be eligible for a Plevin refund.
    by Moneyineptitude; from earlier in the thread
    I'm not entirely sure that it is that cut and dried. I did a lot of reading last night, including the case summary from Mrs Plevin's case and it repeatedly included phrases like "non-disclosure of the amount of the commissions", "non-disclosure of the amount of the commissions made the relationship unfair", "neither the amount or the recipient of the commission was disclosed".

    Mrs Plevin knew there was commision paid from her premiums, her documentation said there was (as do mine), but she had no idea that it was 78.5% of her premium, making the amount she was investing in the insurance aspect to be very small indeed and had she known that, would not have bought the policy: "A reasonable person [...] would be bound to question [...] whether it was a sensible transaction to enter into".

    As my loan docs - including the only one of the four that might be valid for consideration by date - do say that any commission paid is kept the bank, I think perhaps it is the non-disclosure of the amount of it that applies, especially as my recent letter from the bank does refer to the "the level of commission received by the Bank was not disclosed to customers during the PPI sale."

    If that is the case, it would explain why I've been sent the letter at all. Had the bank known that all their loan paperwork was pre-printed with that phrase about commission, then surely there wouldn't be any case to answer, so the amount not being disclosed must be pertinent. So maybe it is more hopeful than I initially thought.

    Was commission front loaded on long-term policies - i.e. they got it all up-front at the start of the policy? Does it pay out based on the value of the premiums for the whole term of the loan (the latest one was 240 months) or for how long you actually paid it for, we settled it just after half way through? Obviously, it's only the amount over the 50% tipping point, I understand that.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 4th Mar 18, 12:21 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    As I said, good luck with your complaint..
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 4th Mar 18, 1:02 PM
    • 92,660 Posts
    • 59,986 Thanks
    dunstonh
    The plevin issue developed over time and things that were expected to be exempt werent and how things were considered changed.

    Banks were initially thought to be outside scope of plevin when the whole thing started as they sell their own product and also take on the insurance risk with the insurer. They dont pay their staff commission. However, the FCA decided to include the profitshare (personally think that is unfair as they take part in the risks and the insurer isnt having to repay their cut of the profitshare) and have to calculate what the commission would have been plus profitshare.

    Again, initially, it was thought that if there was a mention of a commission being received, that would be enough. However, things moved on and amounts are required. Although a ballpark amount would be considered acceptable (at least that is the current thinking).
    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.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 4th Mar 18, 1:14 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    As I said, good luck with your complaint..
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Thank you. As I said, I'm not holding my breath. But anything would certainly help, we're in tricky circumstances at the moment.

    The plevin issue developed over time and things that were expected to be exempt werent and how things were considered changed.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    I can see that. I dismissed it some time ago as I didn't think it was relevant to me, but getting this letter made me re-look at it.

    Again, initially, it was thought that if there was a mention of a commission being received, that would be enough. However, things moved on and amounts are required. Although a ballpark amount would be considered acceptable (at least that is the current thinking).
    So, it doesn't sound like there's much point me trying to second guess what it might be. I shall await further news from them then - probably not for a while yet. I wasn't expecting anything anyway, so even 20 quid would buy a few ice creams on holiday.

    Thanks for the explanation.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 12th Mar 18, 10:13 AM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    My subconscious must have been working on this and a thought popped into my head earlier; with PPI redress settlements, the value of any successful claims during the life of the policy are understandably subtracted from the payment - is this also true with commission settlements?

    If it is, then we had a claim in 2005, half way through the life of the only loan I think qualifies and it was certainly a lot greater in value than any potential payout might be, so there wouldn't be anything left, not even enough for an ice cream.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 12th Mar 18, 3:02 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    we had a claim in 2005, half way through the life of the only loan I think qualifies
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    Ah, that would perhaps explain why your earlier PPI complaint on five loans did not gain you a large award. If the PPI redress has already been offset against the claim you made on the PPI, then you may well still receive a full Plevin refund.
    • BooJewels
    • By BooJewels 12th Mar 18, 4:18 PM
    • 273 Posts
    • 204 Thanks
    BooJewels
    Ah, that would perhaps explain why your earlier PPI complaint on five loans did not gain you a large award. If the PPI redress has already been offset against the claim you made on the PPI, then you may well still receive a full Plevin refund.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    I'm not sure that fully explains it. The first page of the letter had a table on it listing the 5 loan numbers, the earliest one was shown as upheld, the others were defended. There hadn't been a claim on the first loan, so it showed no deduction for one, but on the mortgage one (that we hadn't wanted refunding and had to reverse in order to retain the policy, which is still active) - that did show a settlement, minus the value of a claim, plus interest.

    Our complaint on the loans was that we were not told it was optional - in fact, it was made very clear that they were conditional to securing funds. We weren't complaining on the grounds of lack of need or suitability - in fact, during several telephone interviews (and in writing) I made it clear that we had been happy to have the cover and had claimed on it several times over the years, but we felt we were denied the option to source cover elsewhere, maybe cheaper and with better terms. So I don't think it was that we'd been able to claim that caused the rejection, rather that they were satisfied that the paperwork made it clear the cover was optional, I think the paperwork was of a slightly different format on the earlier loan they did settle making it less clear cut. I only actually found it after the settlement, where I did have the other 4 to hand.

    So will the claim in 2005 be deducted from any commission settlement under Plevin, as the claim was probably at least ten-fold any potential commission settlement? In which case you wouldn't think they'd even bother considering it.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 12th Mar 18, 4:32 PM
    • 20,164 Posts
    • 11,106 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    So will the claim in 2005 be deducted from any commission settlement under Plevin ?
    Originally posted by BooJewels
    To which I can only respond....perhaps.
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

874Posts Today

6,778Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin