New Reviewer

PPI claim with all the classic mis-selling clues but ruled out

Update by user Jul 25, 2018

Update: Just got another PPI ruling from the emanent gents at FOS (yes, spelled correctly!) Apparently, I would have needed PPI to cover £10 a month for 12 months, on my £33,000 job and wife's £28,000 salary. Jeez!

I could have *** out more money in one go! Where on Earth do they get these ombudsmen? Unbelievable is not the word!

How is anyone supposed to get justice when there are "people" making decisions like these? .

Update by user Jul 11, 2018

Financial Ombudsman maintains position that keeping PPI secret, not needing it or knowing about it, overcharging (Plevin) relative to others and selling by untrained personnel at a shop counter completely without any advice whatsoever - is all OK and was not mis-selling! With such a bizarre and unaccountable ruling, it is impossible to take the case any further and get even a sliver of justice.

Original review posted by user Jun 11, 2018
Launched a PPI claim "blitz" in Winter (78 accounts, most came back no PPI). However, several came back as taken over/purchased by a well known high street bank with 'questionable customer appeal; who, as a standard practice, deny all PPI claims. In one case, dating back to 2003, probably 5 years before ANYONE had ever heard of PPI, a card application succeeded and along the way, signatures were requested in several boxes entirely without explanation, by an untrained counter person, not qualified in selling insurance, not even mentioning PPI or what the one-off £9:99p fee was for nor the higher rate of interest (Plevin), not asking if any insurance were wanted or needed, and so on. The Ombudsman ruled all that was NOT mis-selling. At the time, the applicant had been in stable employment for 7 years at the same company, salary £33,000pa, at least 3 onths sickpay, at least 3 months savings and total spend EVER on the card account was £94. The Ombudsman ruled that the applicant would have wanted and needed the insurance "if you had known about it". Incredible! We estimate about 200 times the total repayment money that was available and yet the ruling was insurance was needed! When the card account was taken over by the bank, no information was provided at the time or till present day and no hint was given that there could be potential implications for PPI. The Ombudsman did not mention this aspect at all. The Ombudsman dismissed any possible Plevin claim for reasons that we did not understand (sic!) but did not mention the age of the account in context of the deadline for Plevin claims - unbelievable! Now, the actual value of our PPI claim was low, probably negligible but the process demonstrates how little faith can be placed in obtaining justice through the Financial Ombudsman service. In our case, we know at least one more card account sold onto the same bank - there may be more. We are not holding our breath for fairness and despair of this country and its so-called justice.
View full review
ID
#1277187 Review #1277187 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Service
Financial Ombudsman Service Ppi Claim
Pros
  • High standard of written english
Cons
  • Low standard of english common sense
  • Apparent disregard for ppi mis-selling principles
Reason of review
Bad quality
Loss
$94
Preferred solution
common sense

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content

For more information read Blog article