these ppi claims

Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2009
Posts
3,626
what's the deal then? a 'friend' of mine on facebook has said how he has just got £9k back, claim took 12 weeks and he will get it in 28 days. tbh although i wouldn't say he's a close friend, i doubt very much he is lying and considering half the town knows by now, he's gonna look pretty stupid if he is.
talking of stupid, how would i know if i have ever been mis-sold ppi?
 
PPI? Is that a scheme shops try to sell you if to cover you against not being able to repay a loan?
 
Did you ever buy a PPI policy on a loan which you were ineligable for?

If so, you can claim. Usually if you are self employed or something as self employed people generally cannot use PPI.
 
If you took PPI on a bank loan it is worth investigating as many banks will just settle with you automatically.

Which is a shame really. The whole PPI thing should be restricted to those who were deliberately lied to and deceived in order to make them purchase PPI.

Not the legions of people who happily signed up to and paid a fortune for PPI and who now have buyers remorse as result.
 
i can't understand the figure, £9k?! does this mean this is £9k he has paid and is simply getting back (i can't see it tbf, £9k?!) or is it a compensation figure.

i have never taken out a bank loan but i do have finance on my car and a mortgage both taken out when i was employed by a company, july 2009.

i was offered some cover on my mortgage for if i was out of work but i didn't take it out as i wasn't confident in them paying out.
 
Last edited:
I thought if was if you applied for a loan then they said you could only have it if you took out their PPI. I don't think they are allowed to say that. It should be a yes or a no and the PPI optional.
 
[TW]Fox;20472114 said:
Did you ever buy a PPI policy on a loan which you were ineligable for?

If so, you can claim. Usually if you are self employed or something as self employed people generally cannot use PPI.

Not any more you can't.
 
Which is a shame really. The whole PPI thing should be restricted to those who were deliberately lied to and deceived in order to make them purchase PPI.

Not the legions of people who happily signed up to and paid a fortune for PPI and who now have buyers remorse as result.

I totally agree with you.
 
I thought if was if you applied for a loan then they said you could only have it if you took out their PPI. I don't think they are allowed to say that. It should be a yes or a no and the PPI optional.

Yes, its about mis-selling.

'I am self employed'
'You can have PPI'

= mis-sold.

'I want a loan'
'Only if you take PPI'

= mis-sold

'I have a full time job'
'Did you know you could insure yourself against the cost of payments if you lost your job for just a million pounds a month?'
'WOW REALLY? SWEEEET'

= not mis-selling and it's pretty unjust if these people are getting refunds and compensation.

Because at the end of the day who pays for the enormous PPI liability banks now have? Yup, that'll be us through increased cost in banking services/less interest.
 
I thought if was if you applied for a loan then they said you could only have it if you took out their PPI. I don't think they are allowed to say that. It should be a yes or a no and the PPI optional.

aaah then that has never happened to me
 
My misses had a 5K loan about 6 yrs ago from Barcleys and ahe was sold PPI was told over the phone she had to take the PPI out or she could not have the loan.....
this time last year she claimed using the "financial ombudsman" rules to claim it back.

She paid £145 per month for repayments this eucates to £8700 repaid over 5 years
That's a huge interest that because the interest on the PPI was higher than on the loan very very very small print...... robbing gets...

anyway the bank dragged this out for 8 months trying to find a way out...... in the end she was given a refund of £2608 which was the total for the PPI Premium and any interest on it this was because the phone call was recorded and it was proved the lady on the phone did say to her "you have to take the PPI in order for me to process the application" <--- Bang to rights here = missold

She was well pleased as i did all the hard work in applying for it - didnt bother with these companies that take 10, 15, 20 or even 25% as there commision
 
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;20472178 said:
Because at the end of the day who pays for the enormous PPI liability banks now have? Yup, that'll be us through increased cost in banking services/less interest.

Yes but banks and other financial services were lying (both outright lies and by omission) for years. They shouldn't get away with it but I do agree merely paying back the money is a little like 'you got caught now pay it back - better luck next time'.

It hasn't stopped them finding the next trick in the past and it won't here either. If executives were serving jail time for it then we'd see a real change in attitudes but paying back money and fines are just considered a business risk.
 
Yes but banks and other financial services were lying (both outright lies and by omission) for years. They shouldn't get away with it but I do agree merely paying back the money is a little like 'you got caught now pay it back - better luck next time'.

I was talking about those were not misled or lied to. If you were misled and lied to I agree, it should be repaid and compensated.


If executives were serving jail time for it

A ridiculous idea. This was caused primarily by incentivising staff in call centres and branches on KPI's like PPI. I very much doubt a corporate decision along the lines of 'Lets pretend...' was ever taken. What happened here is the natural result of paying commission to low level sales staff.

We all know what sales staff will say to get a sale - just go to Purple Shirt land or your local used car dealer. This was the same principle at work.

If you decided to pay your staff £20 for every copy of Norton they shipped with a hardware order then human nature would dictate all sorts of tall stories being told to customers in order to get a copy in the box. The idea that you yourself should be jailed for the actions of commission hungry staff simply because you felt incentivising sales was a prudent business decision is not a good one :p
 
[TW]Fox;20472312 said:
A ridiculous idea. This was caused primarily by incentivising staff in call centres and branches on KPI's like PPI. I very much doubt a corporate decision along the lines of 'Lets pretend...' was ever taken. What happened here is the natural result of paying comission to low level sales staff.

We all know what sales staff will say to get a sale - just go to Purple Shirt land or your local used car dealer. This was the same principle at work.

Obtaining goods or money by deception? Why is it ridiculous? Because it's too hard to prove? If the banks have admitted mis-selling surely that's acceptance of guilt? Lets just say to Barclays or Natwest you need to put somebody up for prosecution, a crime has been commited and must be punished.

I can tell you next time somebody is worrying about their KPIs they'll think twice.

My point remains - financial services do this sort of thing all the time and will carry on doing it because they just accept getting caught as a risk of doing business in this way. The reward is too great and the risk too small.
 
Obtaining goods or money by deception? Why is it ridiculous? Because it's too hard to prove? If the banks have admitted mis-selling surely that's acceptance of guilt?

And who do you charge with it? It's the individual staff members down at branch/call centre level that did it. Not the executives. It was the unintended consequences of incentivising staff on PPI. Consequences they are not paying dearly for because the PPI repayment liabilities are HUGE - many times more than the PPI profit IMHO.

'The Bank' isn't one person it's thousands of people.

My point remains - financial services do this sort of thing all the time and will carry on doing it because they just accept getting caught as a risk of doing business in this way. The reward is too great and the risk too small.

Lets go back to my Norton idea. Would you consider it fair if you were arrested for obtaining funds by deception if it turned out one of your staff had been earning his £20 a go commission by telling people that if they didnt buy it, the hardware would fail within 6 months?

It would be your decision to incentivise the staff that gave rise to the deception, but not your decision or even intention to decive. Your intention was simply to sell more copies of Norton.

It's completley wrong to say this is a financial services only thing. All areas of business do this. They shouldn't, but it happens. From car salesmen insisting you cant buy without Supaguard to people flogging overpriced double glazing to pensioners - in ANY area of sales where you incentivise staff, you will get bad apples who will lie in order to shift more product and earn more commission.

I bet there isn't a SINGLE incentive scheme in ANY area of sales in ANY sector where people have never, ever lied to get a sale to earn commission.

This is a problem with commission based sales. It isn't a financial services thing, its an everything-thing. If you are paying somebody a low basic topped up by commission he's going to sell sell sell. Which is what you want - but many will realise they can sell sell sell x 2 if they pretty much force products on people.

Thats what happens when you pay £15k a year with the potential to use commission to significantly bump that!
 
Last edited:
My girlfriend just finished her mis-sold PPI claim and got back £1027.

Basically while she was a student she was sold protection (PPI) for her credit card so if she couldn't make a payment the PPI would cover it. However they didn't point out that because she was a student in their T&C it stated she wouldn't be covered by the PPI.

Was fairly simple to claim it back.

She also got a £300 tax rebate the same month!
 
Back
Top Bottom