How to get a PPI refund in Ireland - from Money Guide Ireland

Discussion in 'Payment Protection Insurance claims' started by Brendan Burgess, Jan 13, 2013.

  1. Brendan Burgess

    Brendan Burgess Founder

    Posts:
    30,308
  2. Emmaf

    Emmaf Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    40
    If insurances / mortgage was taken out through a Broker, is it still possible to have been mis-sold PPI?
    And if so, do I contact the Broker who organised the product or the actual Bank / lender?

    Thank you.
     
  3. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,430
    If the PPI was done TOTALLY by the Broker, put your claim in via the broker, BUT if the ppi was attached to the Mortgage lender , go after the lender.If the Broker is still in business ,the broker will have insurance to cover claims.
    Suggest , have a good look at your documents to see who ACTUALLY sold you the ppi. Claim ONLY in writing, keep copies.If you took the ppi out more than 6 yers ago , it will be difficult.. But DO NOT give up.
    It is HIGHLY probable you have been mis-sold ppi, it is also highly probable you will get the run around twix bank/broker , but as I say .. KEEP EVERYTHING IN WRITING and don,t give up.Please DO NOT trust them to act fairly.
     
  4. AndyDub

    AndyDub Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    70
    Not in my experience, the bank that refunded me PPI were very cooperative once I wrote to them asking to investigate.
     
  5. sahd

    sahd Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    720

    BUT - in another thread on PPI you didn't seem too happy with the outcome.

    "My only issue now would be how they calculated the refund, and the interest and why they didn't refer to my original card from 1999"

    Did they ever do anything about that refund going back to 1999 ? Or are they just using the 6 year rule?
     
  6. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,430
    Banks sometimes pay out because
    1.they can,t find the original contract
    2. Blatently wrong eg you were 15 when you got the policy.
    3. I have NEVER seen them invoke the 6 year rule, cutely they tell you write to Ombudsman (who they Pay)who they KNOW can,t go past 6 years. He will then write and tell you that !!!
    4. If they do go back to 99 , they will say that you got umpteenreminders etc on PPI over the years etc.
    5. If your refund was on a loan , let me know the dates and amounts and rate and I will get you a fair figure.
    6. Quite simply ROI banks will not REALLY pay out until our Td,s change our legislation to UK model, I don,t see this happening as most mis-sells were perpetrated against (the little folk)
     
  7. gubby

    gubby Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    25
    I am sure I saw the name of a firm of solicitors who deal with these cases here a few days ago. now I cant find it. can anyone help as I feel I would not be able to deal with this myself as it was over 6 yrs since we took out loans while my husband was self employed
     
  8. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,430
    there is a HUGE push to have the 6 year rule amended, i would suggest keep an eye on the press. Some ppi claim companies and claim Solicitors are inferring they can get (round) the 6 year rule. Because your husband was self-employed does NOT mean he was mis-sold as many ppi cases were set-up only for self-employed. BE AWARE this is not exactly like the UK mess. I advise you get all the documention together and phone or pick a ppi claim company BUT sign nothing until you are comfortable.Most ppi Solicitors/companies are Uk and are ONLY stocking up deals and doing NOTHING yet.
     
  9. bernanke

    bernanke New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Here is a scenario..Someone took out a loan in August 2007 and was told by the bank that the loan was conditional on taking out PPI, they were told that they would be covered if they were out of work or lost their job - that's all.
    The following the job finishes and the claimant calls the bank who refer them to the PPI people and the PPI people say, no dice...the employer is still involved in the activity to which you were employed so you do not qualify.

    Clearly a refund is on the cards for mis selling PPI.

    But could the person sue the bank/ppi people for the outstanding amount of the loan because they suffered financial loss because PPI was valueless? ie PPI repayments did not kick in when they lost their job.

    Would they be better off suing the bank for the outstanding loan amount or claiming the PPI refund?
     
  10. bernanke

    bernanke New Member

    Posts:
    7
    Some errors in the previous post...here's the repost, I hope it is clearer!

    Here is a scenario..Someone took out a loan in August 2007 and was told by the bank that the loan was conditional on taking out PPI, they were told that they would be covered if they were out of work or lost their job - that's all.

    Late the following year the job finishes and the claimant calls the bank who refer them to the PPI people and the PPI people say, 'no dice...the employer is still involved in the activity to which you were employed so you do not qualify'.

    Clearly a refund is on the cards for mis selling PPI.

    But could the person sue the bank/ppi people for the outstanding amount of the loan because they suffered financial loss because PPI was valueless? ie PPI repayments did not kick in when they lost their job.

    Would they be better off suing the bank for the outstanding loan amount or claiming the PPI refund?
     
  11. wbbs

    wbbs Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,454
    I have never heard of the ppi company not paying out because the employer was still in business, was this a voluntary redundancy situation or a contract ending or how did the person's employment cease?
     
  12. bernanke

    bernanke New Member

    Posts:
    7
    The company restricted the person getting more information/clarification regarding new contract terms from the finance person, even though the finance person was available in two days to clear up any questions. The offer was presented to the person on a friday but he wanted to clear up a few points with the finance guy prior to signing. The group said sign today or finish work in 30 days. The person said he would not sign until he had discussed matters with the groups finance guy in two days when he returned. He was served his notice immediately by the employer.
    Its worth adding that the employer was very happy with the work performance etc. The reason behind the request to speak with the finance guy was that each month the paychecks were wildly fluctuating by up to 50%! with no reason whatsoever given...it seemed to be at the whim of payroll, considering it was a flat monthly salary that was due these fluctuations were a cause of great stress and worry. The employee could not ever be confident of what their salary would be at the end of each month and made budgeting really difficult if not impossible! Hence the request for clarification of new terms prior to signing, which was refused by the employer.
    It seemed this little request was to much for the employer, crazy.
     
  13. wbbs

    wbbs Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,454
    See all that story is irrelevant to the PPI company, either person was made redundant or not, if not a case of redundancy then they don't qualify for PPI.
     
  14. bernanke

    bernanke New Member

    Posts:
    7
    But the PPI was sold as cover 'if they lost their job or were out of work'?
     
  15. sahd

    sahd Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    720
    But from your description - the company could say the person didn't sign/renew the contract.
     
  16. wbbs

    wbbs Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    1,454
    Yes but it's lost their job or were out of work when they didn't expect to be and through no fault of their own. You wouldn't expect for example someone who was sacked to be paid the PPI, there are always conditions with any insurance.
     
  17. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,430
    FEW THINGS HERE.
    1. Obviously mis-sold , but your word against Bank , Ombudsman seems to mostly find for Banks !!
    2. It is ILLEGAL to insist on ppi for a loan. (again on verbals Ombudsman finds for Banks)
    3. Sold cover for lost job. Obviously poorly sold by Bank Clerk. Under 2006 Code it is UP TO the Bank to give clarity. They will say they did ( you have guessed it, Ombudsman believes them !!)
    4. You can sue Bank but unless you have evidence rather than verbals , their Lawyers (paid for by you) will EAT you.
    5. WHAT MOST POSTERS DO NOT GET IS THIS; IT IS UP TO THE REGULATED PROVIDER TO GIVE CLARITY, NOT FOR THE CUSTOMER TO HAVE TO ASK. THAT IS WHY PROVIDERS ARE PERMITTED TO SELL PPI.
    6. OUR REGULATORS ARE (SUPPOSED) TO PROTECT US !!!
     
  18. bernanke

    bernanke New Member

    Posts:
    7
    It's a crazy situation..as it happens the ppi was sold in August 2007, not sure if that makes any difference but as far as I know there has been no contact from the bank in regard to the mis-selling. I assume because it was verbal terms, ie no ppi - no loan...it will cover you in the event of job loss etc, then there is no case for them to answer.
     
  19. Gerry Canning

    Gerry Canning Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    2,430
    bernanke;


    A huge difference;
    If your PPI was sold in Aug 2007 , your Bank, assuming it is one of the normal lenders is subject to the Review of all policies sold since that date.

    Write to them (keep a copy) and ask about the outcome of the Review of your account that was initiated by the Central Bank. At the same time ask for a copy of your loan document and what you may have signed for ppi.

    The Central Bank has said all policies since 1st Aug 2007 are to be reviewed.
     
  20. Popper

    Popper Frequent Poster

    Posts:
    26
    There might be a huge push on, but I bet it will be unsuccessful. My spies in the Dept of Finance tell me that the Central bank has been frantically lobbying the government against changing the law. It is warning the Minister that refund and compensation levels similar to what we have seen in the UK will seriously set back the recapitalisation of the weaker banks.
    The Central Bank cynically advised claimants not to seek the help of the companies that had been so successful in extracting compensation from the UK banks. The consequence is that many Irish claimants were fobbed off and recovery rates were a fraction of those in the UK.