Thread: Natwest And Payment Loan Protection

It's like this...

I started a new job in April 1988 which necessitated the purchase of a car - to this end, Natwest loaned me £4,053, including a PLP element of £553.

I only recently came to realise that any such insurance must have been 'mis-sold' as - quite apart from NatWest's failure to ensure I was fully aware of what I was signing up for; advise me that there may be cheaper alternatives; etc; etc - I was starting a new job and, therfore, hadn't been in continuous employment for six months and wouldn't have qualified for any pay-outs under the terms of the PLP.

The person who sold me the policy was well aware of my reason for having to purchase a car and ought, therefore, to have advised me there was no point in paying for the PLP.

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM I'M THINKING ALONG THE RIGHT LINES?!

Moreover, is anyone able to confirm that there would have been a clause referring to continuous employment in any PLP sold by NatWest at this time? I assume there would, as it seems to be standard practice in all types of PPI, but am still waiting for a response to my S.A.R - (Subject access request) to confirm this.

Thanks in anticipation
Fred_Funk

Similar Threads:

• Q. re:Loan/CC Payment Protection - reclaims
• Loan early settlement Payment protection
• HSBC Loan Payment Protection Issues
• loan payment protection question
• Income Protection or Loan Protection

Sorry, I meant 1998... doh!

The first repayment was on Jun 24 1998 and the final one approximately three years later.

Thanks yourbank.

Appreciate this isn't your area of expertise but, just wondered, can you confirm that it's usual for Natwest PLP to make pay-outs dependent on something like 'six months continuous employment'.

Assuming this is the case then, clearly, I was just about to start a new job when I took out this loan yet wasn't advised that this would render me illegible for any pay-out, thereby making, IMO, the insurance mis-sold.

Could be wrong here Fred but I'm almost positive that one of the stipulations for PPI is that you have to have been in continous employment (length varies depending on company I think) prior to the PPi application.

Originally Posted by Fred_Funk

It's like this...

I started a new job in April 1988 which necessitated the purchase of a car - to this end, Natwest loaned me £4,053, including a PLP element of £553.

I only recently came to realise that any such insurance must have been 'mis-sold' as - quite apart from NatWest's failure to ensure I was fully aware of what I was signing up for; advise me that there may be cheaper alternatives; etc; etc - I was starting a new job and, therfore, hadn't been in continuous employment for six months and wouldn't have qualified for any pay-outs under the terms of the PLP.

The person who sold me the policy was well aware of my reason for having to purchase a car and ought, therefore, to have advised me there was no point in paying for the PLP.

PLEASE CAN SOMEONE CONFIRM I'M THINKING ALONG THE RIGHT LINES?!

Moreover, is anyone able to confirm that there would have been a clause referring to continuous employment in any PLP sold by NatWest at this time? I assume there would, as it seems to be standard practice in all types of PPI, but am still waiting for a response to my S.A.R - (Subject access request) to confirm this.

Thanks in anticipation
Fred_Funk

Hello Fred,

See you going for the nastywest

I was very successful with a loan I took out with them in 2001, but have not been very successful with 3 loans prior to that. They state their databases do not hold any information from that period and I must confess it is like trying to get blood out of a stone, but onwards and upwards, I am happy with the situation as it stands.

My case is a little bit more complicated, in the fact they have defaulted me on this loan and are threatening recovery action on the alleged balance, of which their is no credit agreement so the account is in legal dispute and has been for over a year. I have calculated that they owe me over £18,000 in ppi premiums over the 3 previous loans, plus statutory interest So I am waiting for their next move.

Regarding your loan, I fear that they will state they do not hold any information regarding it as they do not have a legal obligation to retain information from 1998. but don't let that put you off. If you know your figures, work out the contractual or statutory interest and send them your prelim, state your reasons for mis=selling and see what they come back with. You can then turn around their arguement with the relevant legislation ie misrepresentation act, will turn the onus on them to prove they did not mis-sell you it.

During these years mis-selling was rife, many customers did not even realise they had it on the loan (I didn't know till I found this site and started to investigate) Don't forget this is why the ppi market is under investigation and companies are being heavily fined.:grin:

When you send your prelim, you are inviting them into a sincere dialogue, but be ready for them,

NatWest Customer Relations
Freepost NAT12685
Borehamwood
WD6 1BR

REQUEST FOR REPAYMENT OF MIS-SOLD INSURANCE


Dear Sir/Madam

Account number: 06003473
Sort code XX-XX-XX

I took out a £4,053 loan from NatWest on April XX, XXXX. At the same time, I was sold a Personal Loan Protector (PLP) policy which accounted for £553 of this total.

I believe I was mis-sold this insurance policy as, when I signed the loan agreement, I was between jobs and, hadn’t, therefore, been in ‘continuous employment’ for a period of at least six months and wasn’t eligible for the cover I was sold.

The purpose of this loan was to purchase a car for a new job I was about to begin. As you might imagine, I explained this to the NatWest staff member with whom I dealt and, in these circumstances, I clearly ought to have been told I wasn’t eligible for PLP.

This aside, NatWest had an obligation to provide sufficient and appropriate information to enable me to make an informed decision as to the suitability of both the loan and the PLP to meet my needs and financial circumstances. I should also have been made aware of alternative options or comparative costs of similar PLP products from other suppliers, however, this did not occur – I did not receive any such information, either at the point of sale or, subsequently, by letter, document or telephone call.

In addition: I was not advised of any significant policy exclusions, nor was any attempt made to check whether any of these exclusions applied to me; it was not made clear that the PLP would be paid for by a single up-front premium; nor that the cost of the insurance would be added to the loan and that I would pay interest on the insurance premium.

I reposed absolute trust in your ability as a financial institution to provide a reasonable level of care and skill in ensuring that my best interests were met when taking out a loan with your organisation. This was manifestly not the case and I am extremely shocked and disappointed.

I request the return of £3,409.36 – see enclosed – within 14 days of receipt of this letter by you. This represents: the PLP element of the loan, amounting to £553; interest of £235.79 incurred as a direct result of this mis-sold PLP policy; and compound interest, at the 15.94% rate charged on my loan, as an equitable remedy to NatWest having, contrary to common law, profited from unjust enrichment as a result of these charges. For this I claim the authority of Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Limited) (Respondents) v. Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inland Revenue and another (Appellants), House of Lords, [2007] UKHL 34.

As I am sure you are aware, the statute of limitations is not applicable in situations, such as this one, in which an unlawful act was deliberately concealed.

This letter is not a complaint and I do not expect it to be treated as such. Rather, I expect a positive response within 14 days accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment – by cheque, directly to me.

If you do not respond, or do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. I believe that these deadlines are more than sufficient for a large company such as NatWest, with dedicated staff and departments.

After that, there will be no further communication from me and I will have no option but to refer my complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service (fos). I should remind you that the FOS take the issue of mis-selling of insurance extremely seriously and, in many cases, have imposed large fines on financial institutions who are in breach of regulations.

Yours faithfully


Fred Funk
enc: Schedule of charges and calculation of interest

Guys

As ever, your thoughts on the above would be much appreciated. Do you think I'm on the right lines? Have I overlooked anything? Can you suggest any improvements?

What's more, I've used the same address as I used for my bank charges claim. Is this the address others have used for PLP claims or can anyone suggest a better one?

Also, I've borrowed a bit from my bank charges letter regarding that Statute of Limitations which, I've said, is "not applicable in situations, such as this one, in which an unlawful act was deliberately concealed". Does NatWest's behaviour here constitute 'an unlawful act'or do I need to rephrase this?

As ever, thanks in anticipation
Fred_Funk

Originally Posted by yourbank

The bank does not have to tell you about what other suppliers do so that part is irrelevant and in 1998 I doubt there was that many companies out there, for example, Martin Lewis suggested British Insurance which has been around since only 2007.

Are you sure about this? You probably know more than me but I've seen lots of people mention this - or are you saying this complaint is only relevant to policies bought after January 2005, since when the sale of PPI has been regulated by the FSA?

And another thing... I've just read somewhere that the Financial Ombudsman can't intervene in cases dating from this long ago and that my only option, if Natwest don't play ball, is to instigate a court claim. Once again, can someone confirm whether or not this is the case.

Much obliged
Fred

Originally Posted by Fred_Funk

Guys

As ever, your thoughts on the above would be much appreciated. Do you think I'm on the right lines? Have I overlooked anything? Can you suggest any improvements?

What's more, I've used the same address as I used for my bank charges claim. Is this the address others have used for PLP claims or can anyone suggest a better one?

Also, I've borrowed a bit from my bank charges letter regarding that statute of limitations which, I've said, is "not applicable in situations, such as this one, in which an unlawful act was deliberately concealed". Does Natwest's behaviour here constitute 'an unlawful act'or do I need to rephrase this?

As ever, thanks in anticipation
Fred_Funk

Hello FF,

I am inclined to agree with your bank as regarding the information supplied by the lenders as to cheaper insurance elsewhere. They are a business. It would be a bit like the car salesman telling you, you can get a car cheaper down the road.

What they must do is give you the option of having it or not. Also they must ensure that it is sold fit for purpose and is actually of some use to you. Meaning that if you attempted to claim on it, they will pay out on it. Not come up with "well you were not in continuous employment so get stuffed or other reasons like medical history that they never asked for

The general content of the letter is ok. Like the bit about the compound interest:grin:

If the loan was taken out prior to I think 2005 the Financial Ombudsman Service may not look at it, but you can always ring them for advise.

In my case they paid up on the PPI and ppi interest after a few letters, and especailly when they could not produce the credit agreement after I send them a ca request under section 77/78 of the cca 1974. The loan was still running, but defaulted. I did not need to issue court proceedings.

Maybe amend your letter, removing the bit about other companies having cheaper insurance and the bit about the fos and start the ball rolling, When they respond you can argue and use more consumer legislation to back it up

I will also have a look for more appropriate addresses, if you send it to the bank charges office, it will take an eternity to arrive at the correct office and could get lost on the way

Sorry but how have you worked out your figures/ If the premium was ?£500ish, is this including the interest they charged on it??????

Can you come back with some figures please

Originally Posted by yourbank

Its the hardman boulevard address, Hells.

Can someone elaborate please?!

Originally Posted by hellhasnofury

Sorry but how have you worked out your figures/ If the premium was ?£500ish, is this including the interest they charged on it??????

Can you come back with some figures please

Okay, let me know if this makes sense...

I borrowed £4,053 of which £553 was the PLP element. I then repaid 36 x £140.18, equating to a grand total of £5,046.48 an an APR of 15.94% or thereabouts.

I used one of Vamp's spreadsheets to calculate that of the £1,000 or so I paid in interest almost £250 of this was directly attributable to the PLP element of the loan.

I then used the same spreadsheet to calculate compound interest, at the 15.94% charged to me by Natwest, on the £553 PLP policy plus the £250-odd in interest I wouldn't otherwise have incurred from the point I was deprived of it - which, you'll note, is now more than 10 years ago - up until today.

I'm pretty certain of my logic but if you think I've got it wrong then, please, don't hesitate to shout.

Thanks for your help
Fred_Funk

Originally Posted by yourbank

Fred its the address to send the letter to because Customer Relations Unit address is not right for PPI claims.

I got that much; I just wasn't sure what the full 'Hardman Boulevard' address is... can you enlighten me?!

Thanks
Fred