Black Horse PPi claim rejected - self employed claimant.

[hijinkx]

Hi - Heard this morning one of my claims was rejected. Very early one taken out in a dealer

in 1993. I was self employed at the time and still. This was the grounds for my complaint

on this and other subsequent ppi complaints (the latter ones taken out in Blackhorse Offices).

They have sent pretty much a standard response , acknowledging my self employment but saying

" Your status at point of sale confirmed in your application meant that you were not significantly affected by any of the exclusions or limitations associated with your ppi policy".

 

I believe I was adversely affected , but when I appeal ( all their lines are down currently!) do I keep to this defence or should I say about the whole premium was added at the commencement of the loan. I await three other ppi claims with them all with the same complaint grounds of self employment. I am most annoyed as when I called yesterday I was told the complaint value was being calculated, or was that to get me off the line !"

Any advice would be much appreciated

[ims21]

Hi

 

I would write back to them and challenge their findings.

 

It would be an unusual policy that paid out to the self employed.

 

You could also bring up the point that the full cost of the policy was not explained to you i.e. that it was added to the loan and interest charged on it over the lifetime of the loan. There may be other reasons for the mis-sale too....have a look at this thread.....

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?61081-PPI-Some-Notes-for-Claimants..(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[hijinkx]

Hi Ims. Thank you for your fast reply. I have spoken to BH and they have accepted my later claims with the same grounds for complaint as my earlier one. I have lodged my appeal with them over the phone and now it is in a further queue I guess , as it was exactly 8 weeks from

when they were originally sent until now. Only two other things to add , I understand they will be deducting 20% tax from their payment which

is not helpful (!) and to say that in all my calls to BH they have been helpful and courteous . Many thanks .

[alisindebt]

I got the tax deduction refunded by the Inland Revenue

[ims21]

Yes the 8% interest is taxable if you are a taxpayer...if you are not a taxpayer then you can get it back.

 

Of course if you are a higher rate tax payer then there will be more tax to pay at your prevailing rate for the year.

[alisindebt]

I work abroad and that is why I was under the tax threshold.

[hijinkx]

Hi - Four weeks on and I have had my appeal letter turned down ,they said that I was eligible for the policy (which contradicts the normal assumption that self employment precludes a claim being made) and the costs were explained to me . Are there further routes I can consider to appeal with. The other claims they upheld was due to the way they calculate the rebate as the loans finished early. They did not accept there were issues with the way the loans were sold , so them paying out was on a technicality. I had assumed that because they settled the later loans they would do the same with the earlier one. I wish to appeal once more with BH rather than using The Leasing Association ombudsman, but I need to have grounds which will be effective. Can anyone help with a revised strategy. Many thanks.

[ims21]

Ask them to provide full details of the cover provided by this policy.

 

One of their standard fob offs is to say that although you may not have been covered for the payment side of things, the policy gave you other benefits which would have been useful to you (in their opinion of course).

 

This of course is nonsense. It is not for them to decide what is and isn't good for you.

 

If they can't provide details of what the cover was for then they cannot say it was good for you can they?

[hijinkx]

Hi Thank you for your quick reply , they said " Exclusions - your status at point of sale confirmed in your application meant that you were not significantly affected by any of the exclusions or limitations associated with your PPi policy". I thought self employment precluded me claiming ?

 

They imply in the letter that their are no grounds for complaint , which cannot be correct. My other up held complaint was achieved on the basis of

redemption technicalities. Is there a foolproof way forward as they seem to have closed the door which I cannot accept given my self employed status. They have not used the fact that it is the dealers responsibility which is positive. They conclude by saying " My review has not highlighted any failings with the sale that would lead me to believe your decision to purchase the PPI policy would have changed". They suggest the FLA to appeal to but I feel

inclined to pursue it with them directly, but I could do with a final knock out blow ! I thought self employment was such a blow ? Any thoughts . Thank you..

[ims21]

As in my previous post...get them to declare exactly what benefits the policy offered.

 

I suspect you may have a had a generic letter of refusal.

[hijinkx]

Hi . They are stating after two rejections they will not consider my claim. I have asked them for the T&Cs and await their response. Do I persist with

Blackhorse ignoring their two strike rule or do I contact the F.L.A. for them to arbitrate and presumably wait for ever ?

I recognise the letters I receive are standard rejection ones and it may be I have quote " not introduced anything new to change our original decision",

suggesting that what I thought was indisputable grounds for complaint namely self employment they don't !

Any further guidance would be most welcome. Many thanks.

[ims21]

I'd wait for the policy details so that you can determine your next move.

[hijinkx]

Hi - Many thanks , will do .

[hijinkx]

Hi - Asking for the terms and conditions failed informally all I got back was a final statement. I phoned them once more and was told that was all they had on the system , strange that they can refute my claim with all this so called evidence but when I ask to see it none of it is forthcoming. So belatedly

I have sent a S.A.R. in today to tease out this evidence, perhaps if they dont have it it may be a "home run" ? As it it will be my word against them or is this delusional too ?

Incidentally many of my recorderd/signed for letters went astray as they get so many apparently , so it was suggested it was more reliable to fax them through. Just as well I have a bit of old technology in the corner - but really it makes you wonder !

[hijinkx]

Hi - I have had the SAR back but I cannot find much save for Evidence of Insurance, can some one tell me if this tells me I was or wasn't covered in my

self employed status.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38407[/ATTACH]

[alisindebt]

All the PPI policies I have ever seen state that they do not cover self-employed people, so unless this bank has an exceptional policy, they are just giving you the run around. You really have to get tough with these idiots. I did so and got every single PPI premium refunded with interest and you should do so also. Tell them in no uncertain terms that as a self-employed person, you were not eligible for the cover they apparently offered and that they must pay you back. Tell them that if they procrastinate further, you will report them to the regulatory authorities. Also tell them that you will tell your MP, trading standards, etc. so if they want to play stupid you will take them to the cleaners.

 

Their attitude makes me sick. They think that selling inappropriate policies to people and then lying when you try to point out their error is good business; it is not, it is tantamount to robbery. You may as well hand over your wallet to them and say, "Help yourself".

[hijinkx]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]38408[/ATTACH]

[hijinkx]

Hi

 

Sorry the link above to my Insurance Cover didnt come out for the Mod to have a look at.

 

I hope this does , it will need zooming in to see it properly.

 

http://s19.postimage.org/v29i3f7pf/ppi_certificate_001.jpg

 

 

 

Many thanks - hijinkx

[hijinkx]

Hi - This policy was added to my original agreement as a Second Schedule of Charges - Amount of Credit 129.60 Total Charge for Credit 25.20 Total amount payable £154.80, APR 12.6% in Dec 1993. The policy is for Life Cover, Accidental Death, Disability Cover , but not I guess for unemployment

as I was self employed. I tried to reclaim it because I was self employed , but perhaps I was covered. So should my claim have been based on

different grounds ie that it was added as an up front complete charge with interest . Can someone tell me now how I should best proceed , as self employment is not I imagine a foolproof reason ?

 

Many thanks - Hijinkx

[ims21]

Hi

 

I thought we were talking PPI....this is a keyman insurance which is different to PPI and can cover the self-employed.

[hijinkx]

Hi - I was told it was PPi by Blackhorse, and it was added as an additional cost on the agreement paid up front with interest attached to it. Is this not

ppi under a different name and the fact it was unnecessary as I had life cover ? Thanks .

[hijinkx]

Hi- I was told it was ppi and it was only when I got the policy details this morning did I realise it was life/disabilty cover. So claiming as I did on the basis of self employment was not the correct strategy. Do I have any basis of complaint now do you think ?

[ims21]

If that is the policy T&Cs then it is Keyman Insurance.

 

Given that they told you it was PPI your question to them would be "why did you tell me it was PPI when in fact it was Keyman. That being the case they have told you it was one type of insurance but actually gave you a different insurance. That then is misleading in itself. That would be the basis on which to challenge them because if you were given a product which was different to that which you were told then it was mis-sold. (PPI or Not)

 

So I would challenge them on this basis...told one type but given another type.

 

Also start getting ready to put a complaint to fos if it goes nowhere with the lender.

 

What may have happened (and I wouldn't put it past the bank) is that they told you it was PPI and you signed up. They subsequently realised that you were S/E so wouldn't qualify and changed it to a Keyman.

 

Now I'm not saying that is actually what happened but it could could have happened.

[hijinkx]

Hi - I think we are talking at cross purposes. When I called Blackhorse in May this year they told me about the agreements I had with them and which had

payment protection. They said this had but have rejected my complaint twice on the basis of self employment. I knew not what it was this year as it was such a long time ago. Now I believe the grounds for complaint are still valid but not self employment. Is the fact it was added up front with interest added not reason enough ?

[hijinkx]

This was taken out in 1993 and so is under the FLA and not a body I have any faith in !