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
    • lee1972
    • By lee1972 13th Aug 18, 1:47 PM
    • 33Posts
    • 6Thanks
    lee1972
    PPI offer- appealing amount
    • #1
    • 13th Aug 18, 1:47 PM
    PPI offer- appealing amount 13th Aug 18 at 1:47 PM
    Hi

    I've received an offer from Lloyds for PPI I had on credit cards.

    They've offered 3370.81 calculated from January 1994 until June this year. However, I've found evidence that the original PPI agreement was made in June 1980. I've therefore decided to appeal the offer.

    Has anyone had any success doing this? Also, is anyone good enough at maths do be able to give me an idea on what extra figure I should be holding out for?

    Many thanks

    Lee
Page 2
    • lee1972
    • By lee1972 9th Nov 18, 3:07 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    lee1972
    You can't "appeal" the offer unless you can show that you had (and paid) PPI for longer than the Bank's records show.

    It's extremely unlikely that your credit card would have had PPI in 1980 since such insurance didn't become mainstream until the very late Eighties.

    Without documentation showing categorically that you had a PPI policy prior to 1994, you will be wasting your time, the bank's time and the Ombudsman's time.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Wrong!

    Got a call from the Ombudsman last week that Lloyds were recalculating the figure. Got a payment of 10,267 extra!! Net of just under 9k following the tax deduction....

    How do you like them lemons?
    • lee1972
    • By lee1972 9th Nov 18, 3:11 PM
    • 33 Posts
    • 6 Thanks
    lee1972
    I agree the Ombudsman would definitely not adjudicate against the bank in the circumstances described,

    Basically,the Op is wasting his time with this and, in my opinion, should simply have accepted the redress based on PPI from 1994 onwards. He is pinning an "appeal" based on a telephone conversation which contradicts both the result of the subsequent PPI complaint investigation and also (crucially I think) the time period when PPI was sold on credit cards. The Bank have even sent a copy of the 1994 application form in which the OP alleges the PPI was added without his knowledge or permission!
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Lol........
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 9th Nov 18, 3:36 PM
    • 5,966 Posts
    • 3,610 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Can you post a copy of the letter confirming this so others can benefit over the next few months until the deadline? It would be interesting to see whether they agreed to backdate from 1994 to 1980 or made a mistake somewhere along the line, particularly as they don't seem to have records.
    • societys child
    • By societys child 9th Nov 18, 7:21 PM
    • 5,519 Posts
    • 6,161 Thanks
    societys child
    Have to agree, such a letter would be interesting and informative.

    • -taff
    • By -taff 10th Nov 18, 10:47 AM
    • 8,691 Posts
    • 7,978 Thanks
    -taff
    It's certainly possible to envisage a net result of 9,000 from 1994 onwards especially with any interest applied. I'd expect that to be a much bigger figure from 1980...
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 10th Nov 18, 8:20 PM
    • 22,471 Posts
    • 12,031 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    Wrong!
    Originally posted by lee1972
    Well done.
    Why do I find that hard to believe, I wonder?

    Could it be that very very few people were sold PPI at all thirty-eight years ago?

    Thanks for singling out my response, by the way.
    • Placida
    • By Placida 11th Nov 18, 2:43 PM
    • 218 Posts
    • 150 Thanks
    Placida
    Extracts below from recent FOS decisions that show Lloyds did sell PPI policies with credit cards in 1980.

    “Lloyds says that the policy was sold when Mr H’s account was first opened. It has sent us copies of its internal records showing that the credit card account was opened in October 1980 and that the PPI started at the same time.”
    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=173487

    “This complaint is about a credit card payment protection insurance (PPI) policy taken out in 1980. Mrs M says Lloyds Bank PLC mis-sold her the PPI.”
    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=194304

    “Mr O bought the policy in 1980 at the same time as taking out a credit card.” http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=121827

    In the OP’s case, the FOS seem to have looked at OP’s complaint about the compensation he’d been offered and thought it should be upheld. OP hasn’t said if FOS thought PPI was probably sold at the same time as the card (1980) or the approach they told Lloyds to use to recalculate its offer, but 15% interest on PPI payments before April 1993 would have increased his redress significantly.

    Seems it may not also be a waste of time to take a complaint to the FOS if you bought PPI on a Lloyds credit card in the 80’s and were unhappy with the compensation offer in respect of the commission Lloyds received.
    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=190408
    Last edited by Placida; 11-11-2018 at 2:45 PM. Reason: layout
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 11th Nov 18, 7:44 PM
    • 22,471 Posts
    • 12,031 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    Lloyds did sell PPI policies with credit cards in 1980.
    Originally posted by Placida
    I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise, just that it was very very rare forty years ago and only became the "norm" in the latter half of that decade.

    Regardless, as usual, no point scoring is necessary.

    I realise I stated categorically that the OP would not get any extra without his providing documentary proof of payment from his own archive. I still stand by this assertion.
    Dunston was, by his own admission, more "coy" and I must remember to adopt this position myself in future.

    I'd be quite content to admit I was wrong if I didn't remain unconvinced that this thread is genuine.
    • Placida
    • By Placida 12th Nov 18, 2:27 PM
    • 218 Posts
    • 150 Thanks
    Placida
    This post is addressed to me so I will answer accordingly.
    I don't think anyone in this thread has said otherwise, just that it was very very rare forty years ago and only became the "norm" in the latter half of that decade.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Nor did I say anyone had said PPI wasn't sold in1980. I confirmed it was. I didn't think the actual number of policies sold in the 1980s was relevant to the OP's complaint.

    Regardless, as usual, no point scoring is necessary.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    My comments were not directed at any particular contribution but seem to have hit a nerve with you.

    I realise I stated categorically that the OP would not get any extra without his providing documentary proof of payment from his own archive. I still stand by this assertion.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    The OP was given referral rights to the FOS. In my opinion, he could take his complaint that the offer from Lloyds was unfair to the FOS.You have your reasons for stating it was a waste of time to escalate his complaint and have an adjudicator or ombudsman decide whether the offer from Lloyds was fair.
    I happen to disagree but don't feel any further discussion on this would be useful. As I stated earlier- in the OP’s case, the FOS seem to have looked at OP’s complaint about the compensation he’d been offered and thought it should be upheld. OP hasn’t said if FOS thought PPI was probably sold at the same time as the card (1980) or the approach they told Lloyds to use to recalculate its offer, but 15% interest on PPI payments before April 1993 would have increased his redress significantly.
    Dunston was, by his own admission, more "coy" and I must remember to adopt this position myself in future.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    It might be wise.
    I'd be quite content to admit I was wrong if I didn't remain unconvinced that this thread is genuine.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Not entirely sure why you need to tell me when you would be willing to admit when you were wrong or your belief that the OP's posts were not convincing. The OP hasn't offered an explanation yet as to when the compensation was calculated from. Perhaps he hadn't received a letter? Perhaps he won’t return to this thread.
    Any future posts on who was right or wrong or about scoring points seem unnecessary
    Last edited by Placida; 12-11-2018 at 3:16 PM. Reason: Syntax
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 12th Nov 18, 3:13 PM
    • 22,471 Posts
    • 12,031 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    This post is addressed to me
    Originally posted by Placida
    Addressed to you? My post was simply in response to yours.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 12th Nov 18, 9:44 PM
    • 5,966 Posts
    • 3,610 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Placida there are simply a lot of cases on this and indeed, most forums where people are told something they don't want to hear, only to return after a long period claiming to have got the result they wanted despite all the evidence saying they wouldn't, akin to the infamous "and then everyone stood and clapped for me" lies you see. Perhaps FOS told the bank to recalculate based on average spending backdated to 1980, perhaps the sums were wrong, perhaps the OP is not truthful. Without the calculations and/or a copy of the letter it could be any of those things, the problem really seems to be the OP focused so much on this conversation on the phone saying they had PPI in 1980 and believing this was the silver bullet that guaranteed a payout for 14 more years and perhaps overloooked something else in their paperwork explaining why the bank changed their mind or why the FOS ruled the way they did.
    • stuart_b
    • By stuart_b 13th Nov 18, 4:08 PM
    • 35 Posts
    • 15 Thanks
    stuart_b
    Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining.

    It's commonplace for lenders to have to make reasonable assumptions to fill in blanks in premium payments like this where they know the policy started earlier. In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.

    As the OP discovered from seeing their SAR response the banks often have to wade through mountains of paper as well to correctly handle these complaints. They are usually under more time pressure than you also and anything less tahn straightforward like this has a good chance of going wrong.

    Stuart
    • -taff
    • By -taff 13th Nov 18, 8:13 PM
    • 8,691 Posts
    • 7,978 Thanks
    -taff
    Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining
    Originally posted by stuart_b

    All those? Rein yourelf in there buddy.....
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 13th Nov 18, 11:15 PM
    • 22,471 Posts
    • 12,031 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.
    Originally posted by stuart_b
    I remain unconvinced.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 14th Nov 18, 9:18 AM
    • 5,966 Posts
    • 3,610 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    Well done the OP in sticking with it and well done for ignoring all those on the thread who always seem hell bent on trying to dissuade people from complaining.

    It's commonplace for lenders to have to make reasonable assumptions to fill in blanks in premium payments like this where they know the policy started earlier. In this case it was clearly a bank error that they only looked at the paperwork from 1994.

    As the OP discovered from seeing their SAR response the banks often have to wade through mountains of paper as well to correctly handle these complaints. They are usually under more time pressure than you also and anything less tahn straightforward like this has a good chance of going wrong.

    Stuart
    Originally posted by stuart_b

    Giving people an honest answer is better than just telling them what they want to hear. That is not telling people not to complain, it's telling them whether they have a realistic chance.



    Should the OP ever return and post the letter on an image sharing site so people can see what the decision was then it might be useful, if not we can only speculate on whether it was from a bank error, new evidence found or the FOS saying they should pay PPI based on average spend from the records that do exist.
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

4,516Posts Today

5,989Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Watching Theresa May... seriously would anyone in their right mind truly want her job right now!

  • RT @thecheekypostie: @MartinSLewis Thanks to this, I have just skim read it. To those in Scotland - on page 548, Dounreay is mentioned by n?

  • Today's twitter poll: The 585 page draft agreement of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU has been published. A? https://t.co/8YLkPyzqYM

  • Follow Martin