Jump to content

mightymouse_69

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    917
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

mightymouse_69 last won the day on August 5 2010

mightymouse_69 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

290 Excellent

About mightymouse_69

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Not quite - and just to clarify: On credit card/ store card PPI, you only get 8% in certain circumstances. As the ombudsman service website says: "The addition of interest (usually at our normal rate of 8% per year simple) on any credit balance for any periods when the reconstructed account would have been in credit."
  2. Or ought reasonably to have become aware. If they've been sending statements showing PPI, then depending upon what your complaint point is, this could time bar the complaint.
  3. You can still buy them. A few high street banks (like HSBC) provide long term income protection. However most are provided by insurers themselves. Short term protection - such as the policy you had, is also still available. You do get a few complaints about compromise agreements. But from what I've seen, they're rarely successful.
  4. This is clearly not PPI. It's income protection. PPI is a policy which is linked to a specific line of credit. It will pay out a specific benefit in the event of a claim - normally the monthly repayments to the debt the policy covers (or a percentage of the amount in some cases). Note that this means the policy holder probably won't see any of the money paid out in a claim. It will go straight to paying off the protected debt. This is a defining feature of PPI. Income Protection is different. It pays out a previously agreed sum of money. In this case, that figure could be as hig
  5. I'll go against the general advice on this thread - I'd say that it is best to give as much information as possible. For credit card PPI, sick pay can be a game changer. The OP said he can't remember and can't find out. But for anyone else looking here, if you know how much you had, or you can find out easily - you should provide this information. I'd also suggest that it's risky going down the lines of suggesting that you remember nothing from the sale of the policy if your main reason to complain is about not knowing you had the policy. You've essentially just said that your reco
  6. It's quite likely that it was front loaded - looking at the time it was sold and the business. I was just clarifying that this isn't always the case. How many hours a week were you working?
  7. No it isn't. It can be funded by a single premium (which you describe as front loaded) or by a regular monthly premium.
  8. They are asking the questions to help answer your complaint. Some people are slightly suspicious - but its standard practice. If you don't provide any more information, they'll just answer your complaint using the information they have. If your complaint isn't upheld and you go to FOS, they'll be asking the same questions.
  9. In some of your post, you talk about the consumer not getting a fair deal. However the quote you gave me (above) is from a business saying that FOS is skewed in favour of the consumer. But say you get what you want - and a court can have a final say. What effect would this have? Well, currently, the FOS considers the following when making a decision: "fair and reasonable in the circumstances of each individual case. We take into account the law, rules, codes and good practice" But, if what is mentioned in the above quote happens, you get rid of the fair and reasonable part. Ins
  10. Those proposals were implemented - so you do have group charging for the bigger businesses. As for right of appeal to a court. That would run totally against the idea of having an Ombudsman service. The idea is that they are an alternative dispute resolution provider. The very crux of that is that they are an alternative means of resolving disputes. If people want to go to court, then they can do so. A lot decide not to - because an Ombudsman offers a less formal, free and normally quicker alternative.
  11. If he was aware that he would be going self employed when he brought the card and policy, then this could be a concern. Depending on whether the policy terms for self-employed people were bad (not all were). Another issue is the back problems - so this is something which should be mentioned too.
  12. Depends on whether you can show that you paid more than they've offered. Your mother in law may well have spent more on the card then your wife did. She might not have paid off her balance by the same amount each month. There're plenty of reasons why different amounts would be offered.
  13. Are you sure you had three separate policies? With linked cards, you usually just have the one policy.
×
×
  • Create New...