PPI Claims - Further Information

[zootscoot]

For the avoidance of doubt claims for mis-selling of PPI can not be founded on the Fraud Act 2006. This Act is concerned with criminal liability and is therefore only applicable in the criminal courts.

Neither are damages available under the Human Rights Act 1998.

[TideTurner]

From TimesOnline



Banks braced for billions in claims

The City watchdog has given consumers the green light to claim for ‘useless’ debt insurance, which many people don’t even know they have. Once they do, the revolt could be bigger than bank charges. By Clare Francis

Banks face being hit with billions of pounds in compensation claims for “useless” debt insurance in a consumer revolt that could be bigger than that over bank charges.
Millions of people with overpriced loan insurance — supposed to cover repayments if you can’t work — have been given the green light to claim for mis-selling after two announcements from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the past month.
Insiders say the scale of the scandal could eventually dwarf bank charges and even endowment mis-selling. There are some 20m loan insurance policies worth £5.5 billion in Britain, and one industry insider, who wished to remain anonymous, thinks as many as 70 per cent could have been mis-sold. If so, the industry could face claims worth up to £3.85 billion from 14m people.
By contrast, about 2m people are thought to be reclaiming ‘illegal’ overdraft charges at a cost to the industry of up to £1.2 billion a year, according to Credit Suisse, an investment bank.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUr l,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'templ ate/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?i d='+articleId+'&&offset=0 &&sectionName=MoneyCon sum erAffairs','mywindow','me nubar=0,resizable=0,width =615,height=655'); }Related Links

·Protection cover in the dock again
·The biggest scandal since endowments
Consumers have not yet started to revolt against debt cover, though, because so few know they have it: firms often add it to your loan without asking.
This is exactly what happened to Nasim Kanji, 58, a university lecturer from Oxhey in Hertford-shire. She did not realize she had been charged £9,000 for insurance for a £62,000 loan secured on her home until she went to Chase de Vere Mortgage Management, a broker, to remortgage.
Not only did the policy account for 15 per cent of the loan, but she would never had needed it anyway because she had savings set aside in case she lost her job.
Kanji said: “I had no idea I had been sold the insurance until it was pointed out by my adviser. I was horrified when I found out how much it had cost me. There is no way I would have taken out such insurance because I have assets that would cover my payments were anything to happen which stopped me working.”
Simon Tyler at Chase de Vere said: “This was terrible advice and there is no way such a policy was suitable.”
Consumers are therefore being urged to check their loan, credit-card and mortgage agreements to see if they have been sold protection insurance without realising it. If so, you have a very good case to lodge a claim.
An announcement last week by the FSA, the City watchdog, could open the floodgates. It said that people who had been sold single-premium policies, where the cost of the cover is paid upfront and often added to the loan, could now be eligible for refunds if they cancelled the loan part-way through the term.
In the past insurers pocketed the money. Now customers who have cancelled policies and got very little back are being urged to complain to their providers.
Matthew Turley, 30, pictured with his girlfriend, Rachael House, and their two children, Mitchell, 10, and Mia, 3, could be entitled to a refund. He took out a car loan for £4,700, but was charged an additional £5,612 for debt cover. Once this and the interest were added to the loan, his repayments would have totalled £14,537 — three times the amount he borrowed. This was not explained to him but he soon realised the mistake and repaid the loan. Even then he still had to pay £6,740 — £2,000 more than he borrowed.
He is in the process of trying to reclaim the £2,000 plus the interest he was charged.
The scandal goes beyond single-premium policies, though. The FSA indicated last month it thinks all payment-protection insurance has been systematically mis-sold for several years.
In a speech last month, Stuart King of the FSA said: “Our work in the PPI [payment-protection insurance] market has demonstrated it has not been sold correctly over a prolonged period. We have seen too many real cases of individuals who do not appear to have been fairly treated when purchasing PPI.”
Claims firms such as Brunel Franklin think the scandal could be even bigger than the FSA realises. They are just starting to win payouts for clients who have been mis-sold debt insurance, and they reckon the average refund could be in the region of £2,000 to £3,000, compared with about £1,400 for bank charges.
Ian Allison of Conkers, Brunel’s claims-handling firm for PPI, said: “The FSA’s speech was pretty explicit for a regulator, but I still don’t think it realises how huge this will be. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
The Competition Commission is also looking into PPI, following an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading that concluded consumers had been stung for some £1 billion through the sale of overpriced debt cover. Since only one in four policies pay out, the cost to the consumer is even higher.
About 7m PPI policies are sold each year by banks and building societies when people take out loans, mortgages and credit cards. High-street stores also push the cover to customers buying electrical goods using instore finance arrangements. However, consumers can pay up to 10 times more for cover from these firms than they would from a stand-alone provider such as the Post Office or Paymentcare.
The policies are designed to cover your loan repayments if you can’t work due to an accident, sickness or redundancy, but they have many exclusions that are rarely explained at the point of sale. For example, PPI does not cover the self-employed, students or housewives. Nor does it pay out if you are sacked or have preexisting conditions that are not declared on the application form. Certain illnesses, such as stress and back pain, are also routinely excluded.
Teresa Fritz at Which?, the consumer lobbyist, said: “When the insurance was sold, the adviser should have explained it and investigated whether it was suitable for you. In most cases this hasn’t happened, so anyone who has PPI and doesn’t think it’s right for him or her should complain to the company that sold it.”
Ways to reclaim your money
Payment protection insurance — was I mis-sold?
If you were sold a policy that you later discovered was unsuitable, perhaps because you are self-employed, you can claim for mis-selling. You can also claim if you were never told about the cover or it was not explained fully.
What does the FSA’s latest announcement mean?
It relates to single-premium PPI policies where customers are charged a lump sum for cover that is added to their loan. The FSA estimates about a third of policies have been sold in this way. Many include ‘nil-refund’ clauses — if the cover is cancelled during the term, the policyholder is not eligible for a refund. This has been banned.
All new single-premium policies must include a ‘partial refund’ clause. The size of the refund will depend on how far into the term you are when you cancel. People who have made claims on their policies will not be eligible. Firms must also apply partial-refund conditions to all existing policies. Millions of customers who have cancelled policies in the past and received no refund are now being urged to ask their insurers for their money back.
So how do I lodge a claim?
Write to the company that sold you the policy. Ask for the cost of the PPI, plus any interest, to be refunded. You may also be eligible for claiming lost payouts, if you were turned down on a policy that you should never have been sold. The firm must reply within eight weeks. If it fails to do so, or you are not satisfied with its response, take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) or the small-claims court.
Bank charges — am I eligible?
If you have been charged a penalty fee for going overdrawn without permission or for having a direct debit refused, you can ask for the money back. If the Office of Fair Trading imposes a cap on the amount that can be charged, you are likely to get only the difference back. In the meantime, banks are refunding the full amount.

This refers to all insurances including PPI's and Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees which are often sold as 'House Insurance'


Tide

[maybelline]

Originally Posted by TideTurner

From TimesOnline



Banks braced for billions in claims

The City watchdog has given consumers the green light to claim for ‘useless’ debt insurance, which many people don’t even know they have. Once they do, the revolt could be bigger than bank charges. By Clare Francis

Banks face being hit with billions of pounds in compensation claims for “useless” debt insurance in a consumer revolt that could be bigger than that over bank charges.
Millions of people with overpriced loan insurance — supposed to cover repayments if you can’t work — have been given the green light to claim for mis-selling after two announcements from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) in the past month.
Insiders say the scale of the scandal could eventually dwarf bank charges and even endowment mis-selling. There are some 20m loan insurance policies worth £5.5 billion in Britain, and one industry insider, who wished to remain anonymous, thinks as many as 70 per cent could have been mis-sold. If so, the industry could face claims worth up to £3.85 billion from 14m people.
By contrast, about 2m people are thought to be reclaiming ‘illegal’ overdraft charges at a cost to the industry of up to £1.2 billion a year, according to Credit Suisse, an investment bank.
function pictureGalleryPopup(pubUr l,articleId) { var newWin = window.open(pubUrl+'templ ate/2.0-0/element/pictureGalleryPopup.jsp?i d='+articleId+'&&offset=0 &&sectionName=MoneyCon sum erAffairs','mywindow','me nubar=0,resizable=0,width =615,height=655'); }Related Links

·Protection cover in the dock again
·The biggest scandal since endowments
Consumers have not yet started to revolt against debt cover, though, because so few know they have it: firms often add it to your loan without asking.
This is exactly what happened to Nasim Kanji, 58, a university lecturer from Oxhey in Hertford-shire. She did not realize she had been charged £9,000 for insurance for a £62,000 loan secured on her home until she went to Chase de Vere Mortgage Management, a broker, to remortgage.
Not only did the policy account for 15 per cent of the loan, but she would never had needed it anyway because she had savings set aside in case she lost her job.
Kanji said: “I had no idea I had been sold the insurance until it was pointed out by my adviser. I was horrified when I found out how much it had cost me. There is no way I would have taken out such insurance because I have assets that would cover my payments were anything to happen which stopped me working.”
Simon Tyler at Chase de Vere said: “This was terrible advice and there is no way such a policy was suitable.”
Consumers are therefore being urged to check their loan, credit-card and mortgage agreements to see if they have been sold protection insurance without realising it. If so, you have a very good case to lodge a claim.
An announcement last week by the FSA, the City watchdog, could open the floodgates. It said that people who had been sold single-premium policies, where the cost of the cover is paid upfront and often added to the loan, could now be eligible for refunds if they cancelled the loan part-way through the term.
In the past insurers pocketed the money. Now customers who have cancelled policies and got very little back are being urged to complain to their providers.
Matthew Turley, 30, pictured with his girlfriend, Rachael House, and their two children, Mitchell, 10, and Mia, 3, could be entitled to a refund. He took out a car loan for £4,700, but was charged an additional £5,612 for debt cover. Once this and the interest were added to the loan, his repayments would have totalled £14,537 — three times the amount he borrowed. This was not explained to him but he soon realised the mistake and repaid the loan. Even then he still had to pay £6,740 — £2,000 more than he borrowed.
He is in the process of trying to reclaim the £2,000 plus the interest he was charged.
The scandal goes beyond single-premium policies, though. The FSA indicated last month it thinks all payment-protection insurance has been systematically mis-sold for several years.
In a speech last month, Stuart King of the FSA said: “Our work in the PPI [payment-protection insurance] market has demonstrated it has not been sold correctly over a prolonged period. We have seen too many real cases of individuals who do not appear to have been fairly treated when purchasing PPI.”
Claims firms such as Brunel Franklin think the scandal could be even bigger than the FSA realises. They are just starting to win payouts for clients who have been mis-sold debt insurance, and they reckon the average refund could be in the region of £2,000 to £3,000, compared with about £1,400 for bank charges.
Ian Allison of Conkers, Brunel’s claims-handling firm for PPI, said: “The FSA’s speech was pretty explicit for a regulator, but I still don’t think it realises how huge this will be. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.”
The Competition Commission is also looking into PPI, following an inquiry by the Office of Fair Trading that concluded consumers had been stung for some £1 billion through the sale of overpriced debt cover. Since only one in four policies pay out, the cost to the consumer is even higher.
About 7m PPI policies are sold each year by banks and building societies when people take out loans, mortgages and credit cards. High-street stores also push the cover to customers buying electrical goods using instore finance arrangements. However, consumers can pay up to 10 times more for cover from these firms than they would from a stand-alone provider such as the Post Office or Paymentcare.
The policies are designed to cover your loan repayments if you can’t work due to an accident, sickness or redundancy, but they have many exclusions that are rarely explained at the point of sale. For example, PPI does not cover the self-employed, students or housewives. Nor does it pay out if you are sacked or have preexisting conditions that are not declared on the application form. Certain illnesses, such as stress and back pain, are also routinely excluded.
Teresa Fritz at Which?, the consumer lobbyist, said: “When the insurance was sold, the adviser should have explained it and investigated whether it was suitable for you. In most cases this hasn’t happened, so anyone who has PPI and doesn’t think it’s right for him or her should complain to the company that sold it.”
Ways to reclaim your money
Payment protection insurance — was I mis-sold?
If you were sold a policy that you later discovered was unsuitable, perhaps because you are self-employed, you can claim for mis-selling. You can also claim if you were never told about the cover or it was not explained fully.
What does the FSA’s latest announcement mean?
It relates to single-premium PPI policies where customers are charged a lump sum for cover that is added to their loan. The FSA estimates about a third of policies have been sold in this way. Many include ‘nil-refund’ clauses — if the cover is cancelled during the term, the policyholder is not eligible for a refund. This has been banned.
All new single-premium policies must include a ‘partial refund’ clause. The size of the refund will depend on how far into the term you are when you cancel. People who have made claims on their policies will not be eligible. Firms must also apply partial-refund conditions to all existing policies. Millions of customers who have cancelled policies in the past and received no refund are now being urged to ask their insurers for their money back.
So how do I lodge a claim?
Write to the company that sold you the policy. Ask for the cost of the PPI, plus any interest, to be refunded. You may also be eligible for claiming lost payouts, if you were turned down on a policy that you should never have been sold. The firm must reply within eight weeks. If it fails to do so, or you are not satisfied with its response, take your case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (financial-ombudsman.org.uk) or the small-claims court.
Bank charges — am I eligible?
If you have been charged a penalty fee for going overdrawn without permission or for having a direct debit refused, you can ask for the money back. If the Office of Fair Trading imposes a cap on the amount that can be charged, you are likely to get only the difference back. In the meantime, banks are refunding the full amount.

This refers to all insurances including PPI's and Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees which are often sold as 'House Insurance'


Tide

my god, thanks Tide, I have been looking for the answer to the above (in red) for weeks!!!

[hellhasnofury]

Another useful link to read re mis-sold ppi

Payment protection insurance - The OFT's reasons for making a reference to the CC

Enjoy

[hellhasnofury]

Protection racket

Enjoy its long but worth the read

[shirleyc]

at first i thought it was about mafia.....
very good reading+true
maybe i was right...........?

[lindyhop]

HI Shirl and HHNF

the shocking thing for me reading through this was that CAB did an unfavourable report about PPI 10 years ago, but since (and only very recently) have some of the cowboys been brought to book.

Disgusting. the read nearly put me off me porridge. Nearly

[hellhasnofury]

Originally Posted by lindyhop

HI Shirl and HHNF

the shocking thing for me reading through this was that CAB did an unfavourable report about PPI 10 years ago, but since (and only very recently) have some of the cowboys been brought to book.

Disgusting. the read nearly put me off me porridge. Nearly

Oh my god, does that I have to wait another ten year to hear from the NatWest
You are probably aware it was CAB that presented the FSA with a mass complaint regarding the mis-selling of ppi and because the FSA had their hands behind their backs, they were possibly forced to investigate.

[ReasonableRon]

The CAB's 'Protection Racket' is actually the title of a super-complaint that they put to the OFT under powers set up by the DTI. Other super-complaints have been made to the OFT about things like doorstep selling, care homes and private dentistry.

The FSA were already on with their own investigation prior to all this as it didn't take long for them to identify the potential issues with the market after they took on its regulation in 2005.

The OFT conducted their own market study and have now referred the matter to the Competition Commission - the outcome of which is still in the future.

I really should get out more.......

[zootscoot]

FSA thematic update Sept 2007:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/ppi_thematic_update.pdf

FSA consumer research Sept 2007:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/consumer-research/crpr61.pdf

FSA thematic work phase II Oct 2006:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/ppi_thematic.pdf

FSA thematic work phase 1 Nov 2005:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/ppi...tic_report.pdf

Single premium PPI:

Consumers to benefit from PPI refunds agreement

[hellhasnofury]

Useful reading from the Competition commissioners office

Competition Commission - Inquiry - Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

[Drew.1]

Hi All

Sorry for sounding thick - but out of practice on this not been on this site since claimed back bank charges last year.

Was told yesterday by Finance advisor that the payment protection on a secured loan i have is in his words "scandalous"

And after having a quick read through this link I tend to agree with him. One of the examples in this link says about a £9000 payemnt protection fee on a £62000 loan being 15%. I took a loan out around 5 years ago for £32000 and the payment protection insurance is over £8000 (ie.. nearly 30%)

My problem is I have no idea if this was mentioned or not when i was sold it.

So two questions if anyone can help. Firstly do I have to prove that I was sold it incorrectly??
And secondly no matter how I was sold it should I still have a claim because of the extortionate amount??

Please let me know your thoughts - this website was a massive help last year.
Regards
Drew

	Bank Charges You should have started your claim for your bank charges by now. Don't wait. You should send your bank a Subject Acess Request asking for all personal data they hold on you - not just statements. You should calculate all of your bank charges and related interest as far back as 1995. You should send your bank a demand for a refund giving them 7 days. You should commence your legal action adding 8% statutory interest. If you wait for the outcome of the test case, you may not be able to claim like this. you may not be able to claim interest. You may only be offered the difference between the charge and the OFT "fair charge". The repayment scheme will try to limit you to refinds from 2001 only. A repayment scheme will not deal with any bank charges related defaults on the credit register whereas in a court action you can ask for these to be removed and to be compensated for the damage caused to you and your family by them. You should also write to the bank and to the CRA and put all charges related credit entries in disupte and warn them that you will want them removed from the Register when the test case is over. Warn them also that you are likely to be seeking compensation for these wrongful data entries. Full and final settlement Have you previously accepted a partial repayment of your bank charges in full settlement? You will still be able to claim the rest of your money back after the Test case is decided. Get all your information back to 1995 and put in your claim now.

[alanalana]

Hello Drew,

firstly I would advise you to start your own thread in the ppi forum. When you do this the thread is yours and all questions and answers on your particular claim can be aired and answered. That way you keep a close eye on the progress of your claim and the advice you will receive.

Just go to the PPI forum and hit the New Thread or thread starter button at the top of all the threads..

Hope this helps

aa

[shaunybot]

This is indeed a scandal but at least we can now get our money back from the guys in the grey suits! There is an increasing amount of good info about this topic apearing online, I found Payment Protection Insurance Commercial link removed to have some good info and a simple test to see if you can claim.

[CapGemini]

Originally Posted by maybelline

my god, thanks Tide, I have been looking for the answer to the above (in red) for weeks!!!

Dear Tide

I have just registered with this website.

Funny enough, I was misled into buying this policy when i opened my account with them back in in 1999 on the ground that I could never prove it before. They kept saying that I have agreed the terms and conditions in writing. But since then whole set of issues emerged. Is it too late to write to bank and ask for refund?

Best wishes

CapGemini

[TideTurner]

Welcome Cap,

No it is not too late. Write to them and ask for details of ANY insurance policy you have with them, including PPI's and Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees.

Yes, they are disgraceful, and were the industry's best kept secret for a while, so take no prisoners if they try and fob you off.

Tide

[CapGemini]

thanks!

will do it with pleasure and will let you kinow how i am getting on

best wishes

capgemini

[bathgatebuyer]

FT.com / World - Watchdog ruling could hit loan costs

Report in FT Weekend outlining the impact that a recent Compeition Commission investigation into PPI cover could have on loan rates.

The article contains the fantastic line:

"Banks have, in effect, subsidised the costs of personal loans by cross-selling the same consumers payment protection insurance, which carries a better profit margin".

Absolutely!

[caissonsdisease]

I too have the misfortune of being missold a Personal Protection Insurance in 2004 from a company called Beneficial Finance! Beneficial is a subsidiary of HFC, which is a subsidiary of HSBC?

I have never been happy about the PPI from the moment I signed their contract and have made my feelings known to Beneficial basically from that time onwards. Most of my actions to cancel the PPI have ended in irate telephone conversations with their call centre staff not calling back and ignoring me altogether!

I tried to claim off the PPI in December 2006 when I was made redundant. My request was completely ignored. No one from Beneficial phoned me back, and I didn’t receive any claim forms whatsoever!

In 2007 I complained to Beneficial from February to September that the PPI was no longer fit for purpose demanding its cancellation and money returned immediately!
Every letter I sent was ignored, and not one telephone query was followed up.
In November 2007 I decided to stop repayments until the complaint was sorted out.
1. Why I hadn’t received a claim form.
2. Why there had been no official correspondence from Beneficial/HFC.
Only then did Beneficial/HFC contact me on a regular basis, of which all came from a higher level of management.
I submitted a third written complaint about one of the area managers for Beneficial/HFC only to find the person I had put the complaint about was handling my complaint?

I submitted a fourth complaint about their ‘Front Loading System’ not being disclosed at the time of signing of the contract and goes against the agreement itself by not adhering to the 60 monthly incremental repayments and non disclosure of exactly where the repayments were going!

I now have two letters from senior complaints managers directly contradicting each other. One stating that the front loading policy was initiated to recoup the PPI in the first year of repayments? And a second letter stating that this is not the case??
My efforts to pin a complaints manager down to directly answering question has been met by the removal and change of no less than four managers dealing with my case. I have to date ‘flooded’ all of them with registered letters of complaints as proof of correspondence.
There is without doubt a stonewalling and damage management operation in effect?

With my situation of refusing to pay until the problem is sorted out brings out two separated areas of contention.
The complaints department of Beneficial/HFC is actively ignoring my correspondence and complaints against them presumably until the Financial Ombudsman Service makes a decision.
The Beneficial/HFC repayments department is actively perusing ‘alleged’ arrears regardless of a legal query or complaint flagged against the account?
Their argument is that I have a contractual obligation to complete repayments.
My reply is that they broke the agreement by misselling practices of the PPI, not disclosing information pertaining to ‘front loading’ on the agreement, and not providing claim forms for redundancy?

Beneficial/HFC are knowingly chasing repayments that are currently under investigation of fraudulent misselling practices.
With this in mind, I have written to my fifth allocated manager informing them ‘I will start repayments immediately’ if they provided a letter stating that they are aware that accepting my repayments maybe illegal and fraudulent on their part and are currently being investigated for these reasons.

I do not expect my proviso for repayments to be accepted, but I intend to chase Beneficial by writing back accusing them of not accepting my repayment offer!

I will ‘with the permission’ of this forum make all correspondence public and available if it is deemed to be of use.

Regards

CaissonsDisease. Aka Pat.

	What are your rights at work Follow this link to read the review of the Guide to your Rights at work, published by Lawpack

	The Financial Ombudsman Service For the most part, don't bother. The Ombudsman is an industry arranged service which is under-resourced, takes too long, lacks clear transparency. You have no idea what evidence the FOS has received from the bank or how your complain has really been handled. The FOS is the preferred complaints route for the banking industry. The county court is to be preferred by consumers for its speed, openness, the quality of its awards and also because it will award 8% interest on top of any damages won by you. The Ombudsman should normally be used to solving little technical difficulties or customer service problems which you have expereinced with your bank.

[TideTurner]

Pat,

Do I smell an ultimatum brewing? Maybe you should copy your letters to the OFT or your MP?