Mouldymuffin, echo what Foggy says, on one hand you are saying that you entered your IVA to pay back as much as you can but then on the other hand you are refusing your IP to look into potential PPI reclaims which would potentially enable you to 'pay back as much as you can'!
You can't categorically state that PPI wasn't missold to you if you had it, you don't know that despite what you may think.
IPs have to investigate these claims - even if their clients tell them that they have never purchased PPI. We have seen a number of people actually sold policies that they did not ask for, or had no knowledge that they existed. This is completely outrageous on the part of the bank who sold the said policy, and has to be thoroughly investigated. Whilst it is disappointing for us not to be able to close cases, I am afraid that we did not create this mess - but insolvency practitioners are actually quite good at picking up the pieces.
While I understand the principle of looking for missold PPi when the customer may not know whether they had it or not (and therefore probably genuinely missold), I cannot understand how companies can force an investigation if the customer states that they knew they had PPI but it was not missold. To push this further would be wrong.
It is not wrong at all sterling, when the customer may bae been sold something that they have absolutely no knowledge of. And trust me, we are finding that this has often happened.
Sterling, there have been many instances where the customer was fully aware of the PPI and purchased with full knowledge, however, it turned out that, if they were to make a claim, the PPI would not have paid out anyway, for various reasons that were not explained to the customer. So, although the customer didn't realise they had been mis sold .... they had !
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
I had missold PPI on a securd loan. I was working in the US on an 18 month secondment with my employer when I applied for the loan with FirstPlus. I did the application over the phone and at the time they offered me the PPI and explained it etc. I specifically told them that I was working in the US for the next 12-18 months and would that be a problem. No they said absolutley not. So I went with it and signed up. I never thought anything else about it until about 2008 when the PPI issue started to surface. So did a bit of investigaiton and the first thing I did was read all the loan documentation including 'The Key Facts' document. I found in very small print an exclusion stating that if the insured person was working out of the UK for more than 30 consecutive days any claim would be invalid. I was away for more than 12 months. I put a missell claim in which was upheld back in 2009. So it is possible to have it explained, know about but still be missold it.
Last edited by MikeyM on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
The point I was trying to make is that there are occasions when a customer bought PPI and it was totally suitable for their purposes. They may have even made successful claims on the insurance in the past. In these cases I still believe that it would be wrong to force them to make a claim for misselling. What reasons could they give to evidence their claims? While I understand and agree with examining the potential of PPI reclaiming on debts in an IVA I can't get my head around claiming on a misselling basis when this isn't true. I believe that it is this type of action that is causing many of the PPI problems by clogging up the system with erroneous claims.
This is true Sterling. But experience is showing that many more were mis sold than were fit for purpose, and for many it needs an investigation to ascertain which camp you fall into. A reputable claims company (few and far between, I fear) will investigate the circumstances first, before lodging erroneous claims. Yes, I conceed that this is often not how it is done, to the detriment of genuine claimants.
All I can say is that I was one who "was not mis-sold PPI" --- turns out, after investigation, I was wrong !!!
Last edited by Foggy on Sat Nov 10, 2012 8:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
My opinions are merely that .. opinions based on experience. Always seek professional advice.
IVA Completed 23rd July 2013 .... C.C. 10th January 2014
From what I can gather First Plus PPI were nearly always missold, even if people knew what they were signing up to (that the PPI only covered the first 5 years of the loan, then they would get all premiums ack if they had not made a claim however the interest would be paid over the full loan term typically 25 years) as the bottom line was that the policy was not fit for purpose, ie it is wrong to offer PPI cover for only 5 years but continue to charge interest on that for a further 20 years where you don't actually have any cover.
This is where the problem lies, some people say they weren't missold as they knew all the details when they signed up, but the problem is the PPI was still not fit for purpose so shouldn't have been sold in the first place.
This is why individual debtors can't say they weren't missold as with all due respect, they are not experts in how these types of policies should have been drafted in the first place and therefore aren't qualified to make that decision.
As I previously said, I totally understand and accept that upon investigation it will become apparent that some PPI policies were missold. This has been highlighted by examples in previous posts. However, I concur with Foggy in that the circumstances need investigation before claims are made and this would have to have the full participation of the customer.
While also accepting that some customers are not qualified to understand whether their policies were fit for purpose, there are exceptions. When a policy has paid out in circumstances that the customer would have expected it to being one.
While tending to fall into the camp of 'do what you want' in regard to the issue of IVA companies reclaiming PPI for their customers, I remain uncomfortable about carte blanche practices.
I do see your point sterling, but I still think that when you're in an IVA to be honest your IP shouldn't even need your participation/approval to investigate, it should be a case of 'we are letting you know we are doing this' out of courtesy more than anything, I know some people may disagree with that and think it's a bit radical, maybe it is, but PPI is an asset which when you're in an IVA you aren't entitled to keep anyway, if the 'experts' investigate and are happy it was missold then so be it.
I do feel there are a certain proportion of people in an IVA who are dead set against reclaiming PPI but would be chomping at the bit to do it if they didn't have the IVA hanging over their heads and knew they would personally benefit.
Not sure I understand sterling's point about clients being forced to claim that PPI was mis-sold. I do know of one instance where this is happening, but I am sure that this is isolated and they are few and far between. If you were happy with the policy, and it was fit for purpose, then there is no mis-selling.
