Hi all :

a while since I posted.

Had rejected PPI claim from LLoyds TSB : upheld by Ombudsman.

However since the Plevin case ,

in the last few days Ive had a letter from the Ombudsman saying Lloyds are now ready to make me an offer and if the Ombudsman don't hear from me by 12th December they will assume this is ok and close the case.

I realise it won't be much but never the less its better than nothing as I had given up on it to be honest.

Let's wait and see...

thanks

Don't imagine that Lloyds offer will necessarily match the losses that you have suffered with your PPI.

It will be helpful if you would layout the entire PPI story here – referring particularly to the losses. What was the PPI in respect of? How was it funded? How long ago did it happen? Also, can you please tell us all the steps you have been through in order to get to this point.

In particular it would be helpful to know more about your initial complaint to Lloyds and how it was dealt with.

No, as I understand it , it will only be the difference over the 50% commission??

Crikey its been ages and to be honest

ive lost track a bit as lost some documents when changing over to a new PC which was very unfortunate ....

however I lodged a claim with LLoyds for PPI refund which they refused to my knowledge saying I knew what I was doing when I took it out.

It was for a credit card.

I sent to Financial Ombudsman for consideration, who also rejected that I had been mis -sold it but then received further letter saying about possibility of commission overpayment.

Then just this week had the letter saying LLoyds are ready to make me an offer.

I will try and find further info about dates, amounts etc and post further.

Just posted for info really if anyone else has had the same

thanks

We are certainly aware of one person who had PPI against a mortgage. The PPI was refunded out of their overdraft provided by the same bank – Lloyds. Eventually Lloyds refunded the PPI premiums plus the usual 8%. However, they refuse to refund all of the interest which was paid as a result of having had to borrow the monthly premium from the overdraft.

Lloyds argument was that it was not foreseeable that the £80 would be paid from a source which would incur interest. Lloyds argument has been that if the £80 payments had been funded from an un-authorised overdraft, then the interest would have been refundable. But because the £80 payment was paid from an authorised overdraft – no interest would be payable.

My view is that this argument is seriously flawed. I'd be interested to see if you have any parallels.

doesn't an authorised o/d involve interest on its credit.

loyds are the most culpable and complained about *anker. yet, the public they routinely ripped off bailed them out. go figure.

Yes, unauthorised overdraft does involve interest on the credit – but Lloyds seem to want to distinguish between that and going over your limit. The worrying thing is that the FOS seems to agree – so far.

i agree with you. forseeability should have nothing to do with it. if there was a missell, then customer has to be put back as if it never happened regardless of whether or not it was part from an authorised o/d

how can someone be put back if it doesn't take into account credit interest accrued as result of the missell. odd.

anyway, just having a rant v loyds

Letter received today from LLoyds : cheque being sent to me for £3000+. on the basis of non-disclosure of level and commission payable from the PPI premium created an unfair relationship.

I wasn't expecting this at all. : when LLoyds turned my PPI claim down the Ombudsman agreed with that but Ombudsman asked LLoyds to review the unfair relationship aspect of the PPI sale.

It's really worth going to the Ombudsman : theyve helped with me with several claims

Nice letter to get today . thanks as always

well you get one or the other not both

well you get one or the other not both

what I mean is I was surprised at the amount ; they must have charged massive commission!!

yep, thats why they all did the [problem], scratching each others backs. at the detriment of the consumer.

at least they all got found out in the end.

but, overall who's actually paying for them. the consumer.

well done to fos for pointing to the commission