DEADLINE DAY – CONTACT YOUR BANK DIRECTLY NOW
You need to contact your bank before midnight 29 August 2019. You can do this by letter, in a branch, on the phone or via their website.
As I cannot take on any new claims you can copy and paste the body of text which I used in most of my claims which helped me win over £2,000,000 for my clients. Make sure you tailor it to suit how you were mis-sold, but this is enough to win your money in over 90% of cases. GOOD LUCK!!!
Due to recent media attention, I wish to pursue a claim for a refund of premiums and compensation in relation to mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance. I have a number of PPI policies with various lenders and this is a general recollection of the sales which took place. In some cases they I am not even sure that I had PPI, in this instance it was clearly mis-sold.
I urge you to complete a comprehensive review of each policy sold and not issue a standard reply as many banks seem to be doing now. If you do not complete a comprehensive review you will not be treating your customer fairly. I would also like to point out that any claim which you reject where I believe you should have upheld the complaint, I will pursue mediation through the Financial Ombudsman Service and request an increased amount of compensation for you delaying any upheld complaint. As you are aware any complaints which are mediated through the Financial Ombudsman Service will result in you paying an additional fee.
I would like to draw your attention to a statement released by the FSA, which as you are aware is now the Financial Conduct Authority: “Where customers have accepted recommendations to buy PPI on the basis of inadequate information, there is a real risk that they would regard the written material only as a formality – and simply sign and return the documents.” In the FSA Policy Statement 10/12, it states that, “unless it can be proved otherwise, all PPI ought to be treated as mis-sold.” If you are unable to provide documentary evidence by way of the actual paperwork issued to our client, your terms of business, the terms and conditions issued to our client, the completed demands and needs statement applicable to each sale or any sales calls actually took place then you are unable to prove that the sale was complaint, therefore you should uphold the complaint.
Where you defend any sale I would ask that you provide me a copy of the original application, the terms and condition applicable at the time, and Key Facts documents applicable at the time of sale, your Terms of Business at the time of sale and any applicable suitability questionnaires were completed. If you are unable to provide any of these documents I will assume that you cannot confirm the sale was compliant, fair or in the best interest of our client and you will uphold the complaint accordingly. Where you wish to defend a sale for a policy that was sold by telephone, if you are unable to provide a copy of the actual sales call recording, we will not accept a “script” for any discussion which should have happened, neither will we accept that “it was more likely that not your client would have been told…”. If you tend to defend a sale on what “would have” or “should have” happened without the accompanying documentary evidence then please uphold the complaint to avoid any further delay by pursuing the claim through the Financial Ombudsman Service mediation or legal actions we may wish to pursue.
When you sold the policy you had a duty to give all of the information needed to assist me in making a choice whether to take out the policy – and to present it in a way that was clear, fair and not misleading. It was also your duty to ensure that you draw attention to the main features and benefits of the policy to me, regardless of whether advice was given or not as per DISP App 3.3.11: The firm should consider in all situations whether it communicated information to the complainant in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading and with due regard to the complainant’s information needs.
Had you fully explained the true cost of the policy, clearly I would not have purchased the policy as it was not good value. For example, did you give prominence to the costs and make them fully aware that the policy would attract interest, be added to the cost of the debt or that by missing a payment for the insurance could result in additional fees and charges?
Please also consider the FSA (now FCA) statement: “Where customers have accepted recommendations to buy PPI on the basis of inadequate information, there is a real risk that they would regard the written material only as a formality – and simply sign and return the documents.” DISP App 3.3.2 is applicable in all cases: The firm should not rely solely on the detail within the wording of a policy’s terms and conditions to reject what a complainant recalls was said during the sale. In addition to DISP App 3.3.5: The firm should not reject a complainant’s account of events solely on the basis that the complainant signed documentation relevant to the purchase of the policy.
I urge you not to reject a complaint purely because it was in force prior to ICOB Rules as per DISP App 3.10.2: For complaints about sales that took place prior to 14 January 2005, a firm should take account of the evidential provisions in this appendix as if they were guidance. You should also take note of DISP App 3.10.3 : Contravention of an evidential provision in this appendix may be relied upon as tending to establish contravention of DISP 1.4.1 R.
While you are investigating the complaint you should consider DISP App 3.6.2:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm should presume that the complainant would not have bought the
payment protection contract he bought if the sale was substantially flawed, for example where the firm:
(1) pressured the complainant into purchasing the payment protection contract; or
(2) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, that the policy was optional; or
(3) made the sale without the complainant’s explicit agreement to purchase the policy; or
(4) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the significant exclusions and limitations, i.e. those that would tend to affect the decisions of customers generally to buy the policy; or
(5) did not, for an advised sale (including where the firm gave advice in a non-advised sales process) take reasonable care to ensure that the policy was suitable for the complainant’s demands and needs taking into account all relevant factors, including level of cover, cost, and relevant exclusions, excesses, limitations and conditions; or
(6) did not take reasonable steps to ensure the complainant only bought a policy for which he was eligible to claim benefits; or
(7) found, while arranging the policy, that parts of the cover did not apply but did not disclose this to the customer, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading; or
(8) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the total (not just monthly) cost of the policy separately from any other prices (or the basis for calculating it so that the complainant could verify it); or
(9) recommended a single premium payment protection contract without taking reasonable steps, where the policy did not have a pro-rata refund, to establish whether there was a prospect that the complainant would repay or refinance the loan before the end of the term; or
(10) provided misleading or inaccurate information about the policy to the complainant; or
(11) sold the complainant a policy where the total cost of the policy (including any interest paid on the premium) would exceed the benefits payable under the policy (other than benefits payable under life cover); or
(12) in a sale of a single premium payment protection contract, failed to disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading:
(a) that the premium would be added to the amount provided under the credit agreement, that interest would be payable on the premium and the amount of that interest; or
(b) (if applicable) that the term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the consequences of that mismatch; or
(c) (if applicable) that the complainant would not receive a pro-rata refund if the complainant were to repay or refinance the loan or otherwise cancel the single premium policy after the cooling-off period.
When you uphold the complaint we ask that you send us a full breakdown of how the redress was calculated, including a refund of premiums, a refund of interest, compensatory interest, any charges to be refunded which were as a consequence of you selling the policy and how much you have deducted from any outstanding debt. This includes where you have reconstructed any finance as if there was never any PPI sold relating to the specific product. This is for the purpose or ensuring you have repaid and written off any debt correctly. If you do not provide this evidence we will assume that you have not calculated the redress properly and refer your complaint to The Financial Ombudsman Service for a review.
I have also outlined a number of additional complaint points:
- felt pressurised by you, your agents and your literature into taking out PPI;
- was not fully made aware by you, your agents and your literature that the policy was optional;
- was led to believe that the PPI policy was “part of the application” and that I “had to have PPI to get the credit”;
- was not made aware by you that you would receive any commission payments, which is a clear breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and affected their right to make a clear choice whether to buy the policy with you or not;
- as outlined in the Plevin case: the commission payments you received considerably inflated the price of the insurance premiums, if I did in fact want to purchase a policy and had been made aware that so much of the premium was just to pay your commission I would have refused to buy it with you and go straight to an insurer which would have been much most cost effective;
- was not fully taken through “know your customer” processes and inadequate suitability questions were asked before you forced the policy upon me;
- was not fully made aware that the PPI policy would attract interest on the premiums, increasing their overall amount of debt owed, therefore making it much more expensive and of very little real value;
- was not fully made aware by you or your agents of any significant exclusions and/or limitations for which a claim would not be paid, for example if they were unable to work due to a pre-existing medical condition. This is a breach of Banking Code Practices Rule 6.1: “We will give you any relevant terms and conditions for the product…”;
- was never told that I could have used the extra funds they were using to pay for the PPI to increase the payments to their debt, meaning that the balance would have been repaid earlier and at a lower cost due to less interest. Therefore, in selling this insurance you have caused me to pay more in interest resulting in a greater financial loss;
- had a number of debts with various lenders, in some cases not aware that I had purchased any PPI policy at all, therefore it is clearly evident that you did not provide adequate, if any information about the policy, what it covers or how much it costs;
- would not have taken any PPI policy voluntarily as they did not see the benefit of it at all and would have put the money used to pay your premiums to better use;
- would not have knowingly signed any acceptance for PPI if they were fully made aware of all the implications of purchasing the policy, any paperwork that they were given they just signed where they were told to sign;
To resolve this complaint you should refund all premiums and interest paid – plus charges relating to the payments should they have cause your Customer to exceed limits, plus statutory interest of 8% for being deprived the use of the funds used to pay for the insurance. If you are not in a position to uphold any of the complaint points raised, I request that you send full disclosure as to why along with any accompanying applications, agreements, call recordings and policy documents used in making your decision.