HSBC PPI Claim now moved to FOS

[rebel11]

Hi allison

 

If you were Pub Managers were you self-employed?

 

I would change the following:- 'The Financial Services Authority’s advice to consumers is that, while it does not breach FSA guidelines', The Financial Services Authority is now the The Financial Conduct Authority - The FCA.

 

Other then that it's fine.

[allison6564]

Thanks Rebel

Hi no we were not self employed, we were managers on an annual salary and not tenants. We were paid to manage and had no fixed hours etc and lived at the premises and ran it as our own with full control over the income and expenditure. We were also paid bonus's on top of our salary for anything profits over the set plan for the year. We had a generous salary with no living expenses so didn't need the cover.

[rebel11]

Hi allison

 

It might be an idea to get 'Oldrougue' to run through the letter.

 

Thanks Rebel

Hi no we were not self employed, we were managers on an annual salary and not tenants. We were paid to manage and had no fixed hours etc and lived at the premises and ran it as our own with full control over the income and expenditure. We were also paid bonus's on top of our salary for anything profits over the set plan for the year. We had a generous salary with no living expenses so didn't need the cover.

[allison6564]

hahah I've already messaged OR....can't be online yet...he's helped me so much xx

[allison6564]

I've just been looking at the bank statement again in connection with number two loan in 1999 and can see that I was working for local government but was a temporary contract and hubby was training to become a driving instructor and was also doing a driving job part time on temporary basis. I've worked this out from the credits into the account.

Not sure how to argue this one can anyone advise please?

[theoldrouge]

were the loans in joint names with both of you covered?

[allison6564]

not 100% sure to be honest only have the credit and debit showing on the bank statement but we normally get loans in both names.

[theoldrouge]

I really feel that you need to do that full sar to hsbc and see what they have got otherwise its all speculation, give the wrong reason or wrong claimant and they can then easily repudiate, I realise its important and you want to get on with things, but I really think it may pay to be patient. Doing a sar can be for many reasons and wont affect your banking relationship, you have the right to that data

[allison6564]

Yes I think I agree with you OR...haven't posted anything yet so will hang on to them both and send sAR....will have to be Monday now. The only thing is that I think they'll only send records back to 2005 as per my other claim but will give it a go.

[theoldrouge]

I certainly think thats the right way to go, will take a little longer but best to get it right at the outset rather than trying to argue with their findings later on

[allison6564]

Right going to do the SAR request but looking at my previous ones they were all in relation to a particular card with an account number.

Should I list the things I need ie credit cards, loans,mortgages etc or just ask for ALL the information. Just worried as there will be so much they might not send what I need.

Will have a llok around the forums for a letter

[theoldrouge]

full sar for all the, information.Re Read the 03/2003 t&cs for hsbc ppi this morning and in relation to your second loan in 1999 if the t&cs were similar, then the policy, interestingly, does not cover unemployment for people working on a temporary basis:-)

[allison6564]

okie dokie

[allison6564]

HSBC rang me today in regards to my SAR request and said they only have records back six years....they will contact the branch in Worthing to see if they have old files but they said its unlikely.

They asked if I wanted everything ie current accounts etc hut after talking it through are sending info in relation to loans,credit cards,mortgages and any insurance policy's both business and personal.

Sounds like they will only be last six years tho so jot going to really help me.

[allison6564]

well update on this one..

 

.the FOS have rung this morning and said that they are using the t & c,s sent to them from HSBC from 2000

which are the nearest ones that they have to 1998 which was the point of sale.

 

In these they do not make it any more onerous to claim if self employed.

 

I pointed out that the ones I have from 2003 and 2005 (the 2005 were sent to me by HSBC in my SAR)

both make it more onerous and they agree that they do but they have to use the ones from 2000 as these are the closest.

 

I can't beleive that I am going to loose this one because I can't get hold of the terms from 98.

 

Frustrated to say the least.

[allison6564]

still trying to find copies of the ppi terms and conditions provided with a midland credit card in 1998. I am just about to loose a rather large claim via the FOS as they are using the ones sent to them by HSBC for 2000 that doesn't show its any more onerous...even tho the ones from 2005 and 2003 do!!!!!! Desparate please can anyone help?

[allison6564]

These are the terms that the FOS have just sent to me from 2000 although this is only written on and not printed etc.

If you look at pages 12/13 to me this does make it more onerous.

[theoldrouge]

If you are self-employed and making an

unemployment claim, YOU MUST ALSO provide

evidence that etc etc,---this phrase seems clear enough that it is of course more onerous,its an extra hurdle to clear to claim

[allison6564]

Yes I read it like that but you know what I'm liking trying to put things into words have you any suggestion as to how I can reply OR XXX I know you've helped so much already but would hate to loose this now on the last hurdle ...

[theoldrouge]

the point is ,in reality, the only evidence hsbc would accept from the s/e in order to claim would be annual accounts or tax returns. For someone s/e witha business with no profits, how on earth would they be able to afford to produce annual accounts? Of course it is a tremendous extra burden on the s/e to claim, and that aspect needs explaining to the fos. The words you must also, can surely only mean its an extra hurdle to cross

[mightymouse_69]

the point is ,in reality, the only evidence hsbc would accept from the s/e in order to claim would be annual accounts or tax returns.

 

The document says that the underwriter would accept other evidence, such as bank statements, to show that the business person was unable to meet their business needs.

 

Remember, it doesn't matter that the policy requires a self employed person to take extra steps. What matters is whether those extra steps are onerous, or exlcude the person altogether. I wouldn't have thought that demonstrating, by bank statement or other means, that you're out of work because you could not meet business needs is onerous.

[allison6564]

The point with se is and I'm sure se people on here would agree,

 

 

is that you don't just stop trading right away it's your business and you fight to keep it going hoping things will pick up

and suffer financial hardship during that period.

 

 

Then like my husband you normally have another business idea in place in order to earn a living before closing down.

 

I think that the fact that you would have to stop trading and inform inland revenue AND provide evidence is more onerous.

 

 

Tax returns are for a full year so would most probably show some income so claim would be refused,

annual accounts may show no profits but they would have all sorts of queries re business expenses

I would think and bank statements I'm not sure.

 

 

These would have to be provided in addition to proof that you have informed inland revenue

and know how these insurance companies work I'm sure it would of been near enough impossible to claim.

 

 

This is why we never have claimed as yes hubby has times between businesses

but would not of been able to provide clear cut evidence to support a claim as life just doesn't work out that way.

 

 

So many se people have been paid out on PPI its frustrating that I am banging my head against a brick wall.

 

The other fact still remains too that if all this had been pointed out we would not of taken the PPI

and l don't think we did but as the only agreement they have been able to provide is one from 2005

when the account changed to a premier account then I can't prove this either.

 

 

Although in the 2005 credit card agreement the PPI box us clearly not ticked.

[theoldrouge]

Spot on Allison,having been se for over44years before old age set in,dealing with banks and insurers on a daily basis,bank statements easy to adapt to suit have never been accepted as sole proof or lack of income That's why self cert mortgages were invented Mm has obviously never had to produce annual accs.Anyway been reflecting on this back later

[theoldrouge]

some further thoughts-the fos say that they settle complaints on a basis that is fair and reasonable to all parties.Your card originally was a Midland Visa Card,it would have been covered by a product called Credit Protection Insurance. It seems to me that the fos having been asked for the t&cs they are relying on to investtigate your complaint,are on dubious ground by using t&cs relating to Cardholder Repayment Protector from hsbc just because they happen to be nearer to the date of the original agreement, totally different product. In addition hsbc having been unable to supply either your original ag, the ppi t&cs or say how you applied for the ppi, the fos should accept the modifying agreement that you signed as far more relevent given the fact as you say above that you did not request ppi on that agreement, I think I would be pointing all this out in your reply, as well as what you have described above about s/e claiming. The unemployment benefits just do not work for the s/e

[mightymouse_69]

The point with se is and I'm sure se people on here would agree, is that you don't just stop trading right away it's your business and you fight to keep it going hoping things will pick up and suffer financial hardship during that period.

 

I understand this. But remember that this is unemployment cover. Not "things are hard, I'll use the insurance to top up my earnings" cover.

 

If, for instance, an employed person suffered a massive cut in earnings - they too would not be able to use the insurance. In a similar fashion, if a self-employed person is just going through a bad patch, the insurance would not kick in.

 

The policy covers unemployment - being out of work and registered as so. The underwriter, quite reasonably, requires evidence that the insured person is out of work and has stopped working for the correct reasons (i.e. involuntary unemployment).