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."

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.

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.

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 high as 50% of the OP's monthly income. The OP would see this money - it would be paid to them to do with as s/he wishes. A successful mis-sale complaint would be tricky. You'd have a hard time proving that you were told that entering into a compromise agreement wouldn't be a bar to claiming.

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 recollection of the time is non-existent. You say you didn't know you had the policy... but you also say you can't remember anything else either.

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?

No it isn't. It can be funded by a single premium (which you describe as front loaded) or by a regular monthly premium.

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.

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. Instead it comes down o the letter of the law. That's puts ordinary consumers at a huge disadvantage. Looking at a well known scandal - PPI - you'd have seen very few complaints upheld. Businesses normally did what was required of them when selling these policies. It is the Ombudsman's ability to look at what is 'fair and reasonable' in a certain case which allows many of these complaints to be upheld. So while you've said that you wouldn't replace the Ombudsman with a court - your suggestion would effectively do just that. And here's a massive issue. The part in bold that is. What's to stop businesses pushing the case to court - effectively forcing those who don't want to deal with the complexity of courts or who can afford to do so have to drop their case. Also - customer evidence is taken into account. It's just that often, the evidence provided by customers just isn't as good as they think it is. To me, the current situation is just fine. If you want to have you case dealt with by a court you can. If you want to go to the Ombudsman you can. If you want to go to the Ombudsman and then to court if you don't get the answer you want - you can.

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.

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.

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.

So how do you think it should be funded?

FOS doesn't have access to public funds.

Are you sure you had three separate policies? With linked cards, you usually just have the one policy.

I don't think that'd make much difference. Once the three years are triggered, the only thing that stops the clock running is making a complaint. I can see that someone may try and argue that they thought the new letter gave them another three years. But I don't think it'd work.

Again, it is due to the specific failings of each type of policy. The costs of a credit card PPI policy were never properly explained - and the benefits were often pretty poor. That means that things like sick pay are much more important - and these types of complaints are more likely to be upheld. However, as I've explained, these failings really didn't occur with mortgage PPI. If I were you, I wouldn't waste the stamp with writing off to Halifax. Not many businesses have a great record of getting back to people with meaningful responses. If you want it all looked at, your best bet is to go to FOS. At the very least, you ought to have your eye on the 6 month time frame in which your complaint needs to be sent to them.

Yes, it would've done. That's what it was designed for. If it didn't, then it would have been unsuitable for almost everyone who took it out... and given that FOS rejects most mortgage PPI complaints, that doesn't seem to be the case. Just browsing decisions on FOS' website confirms this, such as here: "Mr B says he would have received 12 months’ pay if he couldn’t work due to sickness or accident and he had some savings. But the policy would have paid out in addition to this, so it could still prove useful." http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=66165 And here: "Halifax could’ve set out the costs better. But the costs were around the same as many other policies on the market at the time. And whilst I’ve taken into account that both Mr and Mrs T had good sick pay, the PPI would’ve paid out on top of that, and for up to 12 months. It also provided redundancy cover, if either Mr or Mrs T were out of work." http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=77952 I'd encourage you to go to FOS if you still have concerns. That way everything can be looked at - and you never know, they might find something else which meant the sale wasn't conducted properly.

And I am sure that CAG isn't about giving mis-leading advice either. All I have done is explain why one complaint was upheld and the other wasn't. The reason was very simple - the two policies were different. I'm not being unhelpful in pointing that out - and I am not being unhelpful in correcting you when you try and suggest that every PPI policy is the same.

So they didn't get any refund of the mortgage PPI. Instead, it looks like a refund on some kind of protection associated with another product. No one is saying that all mortgage policies were sold properly. And the Plevin court case is very well known - though the exact implications are still subject to question. What I am saying is that to compare overdraft PPI to mortgage PPI is utterly wrong.

This is nonsense. There is more than the absence of a mortgage advisor which makes the two policies different. As I said above, overdraft PPI had one major flaw - and that was the way that the costs were charged. MPPI didn't suffer from this flaw. Generally, PPI sold alongside mortgages had the costs disclosed in an easy to understand way and the benefit they'd provide was easy to understand - i.e. it'd repay your monthly mortgage payments. Added to the fact that a mortgage is a very important financial commitment, and worth protecting, mortgage PPI was and still is seen as a useful thing to have. And this is backed up with data - look at ombudsman decisions and you'll see that the vast majority of overdraft PPI complaints are upheld while mortgage PPI complaints usually fail. And there is no running away from the commission issues. If this complaint was one where the commission issue was relevant, Halifax would've said so in their letter, as they are unable to give a final response on the matter at the moment. If the OP remains unhappy, he can take it to the FOS. But it is wrong to build up false hope and suggest that the two policies were the same, therefore if one is upheld the other ought to be as well.

Each type of PPI policy works in a different way - so it's not unusual for some policies to be upheld and others not to be. With overdraft PPI, you often had to pay premiums even when you weren't overdrawn. This wasn't usually disclosed clearly enough during the sale. This means that complaints about this type of policy will often be upheld.

Nope. Once the 3 years starts running, it can only be stopped by a complaint being made by the customer.

I don't really understand your point. It was written in the early 2000's. It is still a rule - and it isn't going to change. In fact, quite the opposite, given the FCA's proposal to set a deadline on new complaints.

Yes - that's the thread I was referring to above.