Jump to content


Capital One PPI refusing to pay


Peridot67
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2473 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

 

I have been ill and 'signed off' since July last year and was made redundant on 3rd October 2014.

 

 

Capital One PPI only paid for the period of sickness when I was working and are now refusing to continue to pay for the period after as I chose not to sign on.

 

 

Is this right?

 

 

can they refuse to pay as I am not signing on

 

 

even though I am signed off unfit for work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you'd have to consult he T&C's you signed up to

how long have you had the card?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised. I had PPI on my CapOne card when I was made redundant and quickly found out that there were so many conditions attached that it was impossible to claim - not least of which was that I had to be signing on and receiving benefits before the claim would pay out. That was when I discovered the whole PPI mis-selling thing.

 

As DX says check the T&Cs but it sounds very much the same as I found

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like an unfair term which is not associated with the insured risk. Please tell us more about the T&Cs.

 

Sounds contrary to UTCCR and also ICOBS

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact ICOBS makes it clear that it is not permitted to reject a claim -

 

8.1.2

(3) for2 breach of warranty or condition unless the circumstances of the claim are connected to the breach and unless (for a pure protection contract):

http://fshandbook.info/FS/html/handbook/ICOBS/8/1

This means that if there is some defect in your performance of the insurance contract which does not affect the risk, such as failing to report a problem within 24 hours or 7 days or whatever the T&Cs say - or equally, in my view, if you refuse to sign on and draw benefits aven though this does not affect your illness, then to refuse the insurance cover on these grounds is unfair.

I think also that the requirement to sign-on as a condition of being paid out for the insurance is unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations.

 

If you have a look at schedule two, you will see a list of examples of unfair terms. They are only meant to be examples and in fact the judges have discretion to decide on a case-by-case basis. However, the examples in schedule two give a fair idea of the kind of thing that might be unfair. Paragraph 2 in the schedule to list of examples is a reasonably close model and it wouldn't take much to persuade a judge to include a requirement of signing on as a condition of receiving the PPI payout – particularly in view of the ICOBS rule which I have quoted above.

 

This is very interesting and I am sure there must be a huge number of people who are affected by this – more examples of insurers trying to weasel their way out. It needs some direct action. I doubt whether the ombudsman would be prepared to get involved because he's too weak. However, I can imagine that a county court action would produce a successful result – better than 80% chance

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...