Claiming a refund of Payment Protection Insurance

Discussion in 'Payment Protection Insurance claims' started by Brendan Burgess, Oct 2, 2012.

  1. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    .........................................................................................
    Try G Canning 0872437139 for advice.He knows ppi .
    ppi will be on Sundays Business post.
     
  2. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    send me a private mail and i will help.
     
  3. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Ombudsman ONLY finds for 13% of PPI Claims in Republic.

    Ombudsman in UK finds for 80% of PPI Claims.

    Same Policies, sold in the same way.

    Why do we trust the Ombudsman?
     
  4. Rudolph

    Rudolph Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    65
    What makes you think they were sold in the same way?
     
  5. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Rudolph; Most of the providers used the same insurance companies, they used the same claims processes.
    Also , Ge , AIB, Boi, Ulster, Mbna, sold in Northern Ireland in exactly the same way as in ROI.
    Worse still ,from what I see they had learned in Uk how to royally do it !I am in Donegal and would have seen it in Uk and Roi.

    Also in UK most claims are settled BEFORE they get to Ombudsman, so the 13% success in ROI smells bad.

    I think we are inclined to believe that our Ombudsman is fair because the word Independent is used

    I am (and the statistics bear me out.) of the opinion that our Ombudsman and our Central Bank have failed us.
     
  6. Rudolph

    Rudolph Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    65
    Gerry, they may have been using the same insurance companies but was the sales process the same e.g. were the requirements in place in ROI (via CPC) the same as those in the UK? For example in the UK did you have to sign a seperate part of the application form to opt in for PPI as you did in ROI? I heard somewhere that penetration rates for PPI sales in the UK were significantly higher than in the ROI. That is not to say some of these weren't missold but I don't think it was on the same scale here as the UK which might explain the difference in Ombudsman outcomes between ROI and the UK. In the UK I have heard reports that there were a number of people who claimed they were missold PPI, where banks paid them to keep them quiet and it was subsequently discovered that the customers had never taken out PPI in the first place. I think your doing the Ombudsman a disservice by suggesting he is deliberately not upholding customer complaints. He can only adjudicate on the evidence put before him, there is nothing in it for him to find in the banks favour but that's not to say they get all their decisions right either. I would say if in doubt he would be more inclined to find in favour of customers than banks, but he has to be able to stand over that decision, whatever it may be.
     
  7. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    RUDOLPH:
    The sales process in ROI was a mirror image of the Uk process.

    In ROI eg on MBNA loans the ppi as included in the loan.


    I believe penetration rates from 2000 to 2008 exceeded the Uk ,in that our love of Credit was at least as wild as theirs.

    If any UK Bank paid out when there was NEVER PPI , it proves the whole thing was a Miss-sell !

    Since the Uk Ombudsman on a product that was sold in UK as it was in ROI finds for the Consumer by in excess of a multiple of 5 versus ROI Ombudsman , then it is fair to contend that OUR OMBUDSMAN IS DELIBERATELY NOT UPHOLDING COMPLAINTS.

    Also I DO NOT ask Ombudsman to be inclined to find in favour of customer , I demand he be fair.
     
  8. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
    Gerry Canning ppi.
    Our Central Bank initiated a Review of SOME of those companies who sold ppi.
    Our Central Bank stated INDEPENDENT Review.
    The Reviewers are HIRED and PAID for by the Banks.?
    Below is the end of a letter I have sent to Central Bank.Please bear in mind that in their own word they are MANDATED to protect the consumer

    .
    Quote

    {I now ask you to FULLY and PROPERLY and PROMPTLY answer these.
    1. Why have you permitted a Review that is not independent to proceed?
    2.Why have you permitted your press releases and general media comments to mislead consumers?
    3. Why are all Regulated Entities not included?
    4. How are you going to rectify your failings on ppi thus far?

    From what I view, I now state,
    The Central Bank is wilfully ignoring it,s own mandate...} End Quote.

    Comments please.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2013
  9. Rudolph

    Rudolph Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    65
    Hi Gerry
    Can you confirm in the UK when people were taking out PPI did they have to sign a separate part of the loan application looking to take out PPI? I do not believe the sales process in the UK was the same as in ROI. The fact that, in the UK, banks were prepared to pay out in cases where PPI was not even taken out shows how widespread the misselling was in the UK. Are you aware of any cases in ROI where banks paid out in cases where customers didn't have PPI? Do you think customers have any responsibility in ensuring that they are happy/satisfied with any financial products they take out, before they take them out? The overseers of the CBI PPI review are regarded as independent, rightly or wrongly, if the banks don't pay them for the work they are doing who do you think should pay them? Judging by your comments on the CBI I would imagine you would not be too keen for them to carry out such a review? The fact that the CBI has not included other financial providers e.g. intermediaries, in this 'review' leaves the CBI wide open to criticism.
     
  10. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Hi Rudolph;
    You are really doing Devils Advocate on me!
    In reply.
    1. In Uk and Roi no signing, separate ppi or otherwise might have been done eg on cases done via telesales/internet.
    2. In Uk and Roi Banks have paid out were they held no written/verbal/internet ppi .Hence no active ppi policy existed.
    3. Customers have a HUGE responsibilty to inform themselves. Problem is Customers were not given the information on ppi.
    4. Overseers are not independent , paid and hired by the Banks. Had they been HIRED by Central Bank ,paid then by ppi Banks I could look at them.
    5. I do NOT trust Central Bank, we do not know the Reviewers Guidelines etc. As an example. I have customer who Reviewers say PPI was properly sold. That man has Athritis for years , he could NEVER have claimed. Under Central Banks OWN MANDATED RULES that is a mis-sell.(see consumer codes)
    6. Intermediaries are a problem, also Mbna are not in this flawed review.

    Can you ring me on 0872437139 as there is too much info available to put on a thread.y
     
  11. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    It seems some Companies are now re-paying the Customers Money that they should never have taken.
    It seems that all Banks are going to send answers twix now and November .
    They have had over a year to do this.
    ............................................
    It means most of Banks(their) Bad News is compressed into a short time.
    It means ppi will then be (forgotten) about.
    .............................................................

    Importantly NOT ALL BANKS are even part of this cynical and flawed review.
    Eg; MBNA now called avante are not reviewing.
    Since Mbna make up 25% of claims on ppi ,I ask what is Central Bank at?

    If you have a case on Mbna ,please get it in.
     
  12. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    I have had a few people mailing questions to me;

    Can you ring me on 0872437139 as it is too slow to properly answer in a short printed answer

    Thanks Gerry.
     
  13. sahd

    sahd Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    720
  14. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    It seems to be our Central Bank is trying to ensure Banks are only accountable from July 07.Mbna were not in original Review. The Cynic in me believes Mbna were (told) to join the Central Banks (tame) Review or else!
    On the Review 20% of case are shown miss-sold,
    Who ELSE would our Mandated Consumer Protectors in Central Bank permit a one in five miss-sell?
    Who ELSE would the Central Bank allow the perpetrators to hire and pay the Reviewers?
    In Uk Ombudsman finds 80% for Consumers , our (tame) Ombudsman says 12%.
     
  15. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Banks are now writing to customers saying that the Review showed no problem with the PPI sale.
    They would say that would they not?

    If you got one of these
    PLEASE put in a PPI Claim promptly.
     
  16. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    This Central Bank (Independent?) Review.

    1. The ppi providers have been allowed to hire the Reviewers?

    2. The ppi providers have been allowed to pay the Reviewers?

    3. Yet Central Bank say they are INDEPENDENT?

    Worse.

    How can you have a
    review where those that Claim they are mis-sold are not asked for their input?
    How can anyone trust this Review?
    How can the (little) man trust Central Bank?

    So we are to trust the Sellers (who got up to 80% commission)
    So we are to trust THEIR appointed reviewers.

    It is bizarre until we read Mr Honohans response to a Td and Quote.

    This Review {has a punitive effect on the firms}

    There is NO MENTION that Central Banks own consumer BRIEF is to protect the consumer.

    Hard to believe this , unless The BANKS MUST BE PROTECTED.
     
  17. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Just had a customer awarded 200 euro via Ombudsman on a miss-sell on ppi .

    He got the 200 because AIB had admitted that thy had not given him a suitability statement on the Policy.

    Under Consumer Code AIB {MUST} give suitability statement.

    So are we to take it that {MUST} in Consumer Code means {Should} ?
    Either the {MUST} stands or is our Ombudsman a waste of air?

    Comments please.
     
  18. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Am told sample cases are in Court in Dublin 3/4/10th April.

    Whilst cases are (only) District Court , it seems they are being heard by President of District Courts which makes them of consequence.
    From what I can glean the sample cases will query things like , should public servants have been sold redundancy cover, were people queried on their health status,had people other cover in place, had they outside income , were they even employed,etc.
    In short looks like the Queries will cover what Uk accept as mis-sells.
     
  19. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,462
    Way back in Oct 2012 ,our Central Bank called a Review on ppi policies sold since Aug 07.

    This Review only covered certain named lenders. It excluded eg Garages who had their own ppi formats, it excluded people like HSBC Bank .
    To date ;ie 1year and 4 months ,said review is not completed.

    Since Reviewers were checking named lenders books .
    Since Reviewers were hired and paid by the named lenders.
    Since Reviewers did not interview the customers.
    Since the Review missed a lot of other ppi sellers.

    How can it have credibility?.
    How can it have fairness?.
    How can it be consumer active?
    Our Central Banks own avowed Mandate is (to protect the consumer)
    Without engaging the consumer in the Review they ignore their own Mandate.

    It still irks me to see Centrl Banks comment on Claims Management Companies, in that had they not been asleep at the wheel, these companies could not exist. At least with them you have a choice.

    If our Central Bank had looked at PPI with the eye of the Consumer,as per their mandate, PPI miss-selling would have been well exposed long before now.

    Opinion; I do not trust Central Bank.

    Sadly , I do believe our Banks with the active help of our supposed Regulators have got away with it !!
     
  20. GerryT100

    GerryT100 New Member

    Posts:
    3
    Hi Gerry,

    I read your comments with interest.

    The review also excluded Repayment Protection Insurance (RPI)sold by Credit Unions to cover loan repayments. I have always been dubious about this as I suspected the Central Bank (and, by extension, the government) were keen to keep already struggling CUs out of the eye of the storm but have never been able to confirm my suspicion. My understanding is that CUs only ever received a commission for each sale but i doubt they have a contingency for a sudden influx of upheld mis-sale complaints that require a full premium refund and the reimbursement of the commission to the provider.

    There was no other reason to exclude this product.RPI is essentially PPI with the addition of a prefix. It protects members repayments in the event of Involuntary Unemployment, Disability and Critical Illness. If it looks like PPI and acts like PPI......

    As an aside, RPI has been underwritten by the UK company Assurant Solutions since 2007 and administered by its intermediary office in Cork. It was confirmed this week that the Cork site is closing in September with all administration moving to the UK. I'd strongly suspect that the company may use this move to circumvent requirements of the Consumer Protection and Minimum Competency Codes. This will make matters even more difficult for complainants