# Payment protection insurance covered redundancy but not being laid off



## mixalich139 (22 Mar 2012)

Hi Brendan,
1. My case is next:
I took loan in October 2007. Bank employee offer me a Personal Loan Protection (PLP). He explain that it would be good to have it, because it will cover  me from sickness, accident, death & unemployment, the only one exclusion he mentioned that I won't be covered if I left my employment myself. He told that in case if something will happen I just need to inform the Bank.
 It's took 30-40 min to sign the Loan contract (the only sing I signed at all)
I was send by my former employer on LAY OFF 01/2010 and 3 month later redundant. 
I came to the Bank & told my situation, Bank employee just took my income (jobseeker's benefits amount) & outgoings to fill in the system and told me that I should receive a letter from the bank. I was thinking about cover.
Its took my solicitor 2-3 month just to find out from the Bank that I should do claim myself to Insurer & to find out the name of it. No name of insurer or his details were mentioned in the loan contract.
Anyway I found out later that policy I have cover only from Redundancy, not any other type of unemployment. In loan contract is clearly written UNEMPLOYMENT(not redundancy) in accordance with the policy details (policy which I never saw and/or signed). The insure wrote me that they cover only in accordance with their T&C, which never were explained to me properly and/or provided. I received them only 3 years later in May 2010 & I never signed them T&C. This is my point: I don't know when them T&C were written and/or corrected.
My case is complicated cause I had a case about redundancy with Employment Appeal Tribunal & got the decision in May 2011. So it's took long till Insurer cover arrears. The Bank was acting like a real .. all this time. Calling me a 20 times a day, letters etc.  
But the worst was next: I was re-employed in 09/2010 & start paying full repayments again since October. 18/12/2010 I found that it's only €15 left on account, because the Bank took funds to cover arrears (without informing me at all). €15 TILL MY NEXT WAGES ON  31/01/2011 FOR ME, UNEMPLOYMENT WIFE & 2 KIDS. I should take a day off to went to the bank to refund them money.  

2. I went to Ombudsman about this. I wanted Bank to cover first tree month, because they misled me about covering details & as the result first 3 month won't be covered by Insurer. Also I wanted the Bank to refund charges which were applied because of one their mistake (Bank admit that it was their mistake). And I wasn't asking any compensation.
During the investigation a few time Bank was trying to blame me, but I was providing evidence (even letters from the Bank) to proof that I was write. 

3. I got the Finding from Ombudsman last week. He wrote that _Bank is not proven to his satisfaction that I was  provided with T&C ... at the point of sale in October 2007... Bank should be able to point to a letter  or clear documentary evidence.. that it was provided to me_. But nothing that the Bank should cover or compensate me 3 month payments. He wrote it's an issue for insurer (they covered 5 moth payments on redundancy), but my opinion that the Bank should cover 3 month because they mislead me & it's not insurer fault. 
Also there is nothing mentioned about charges, just that Bank confirm that all charges were refunded????. I sent to Ombudsman explanation in details together with statement as a proof that not all charges were refunded. 
Ombudsman directed to the Bank to pay me compensation €350. I spent on solicitor €300, €600 should pay now for 3 month repayments plus charges.So I'm not happy about this Finding & that's why I was asking if SAM27 was going forward with his case.
I would be appreciate if you'll write your opinion about this. Thanks. Mike


----------



## Brendan Burgess (23 Mar 2012)

Sorry Mike

I don't understand the issue or the complaint you have made.

Can you simplify it? 

Is it

1) You were fired, so this was not covered. 

2) You were made redundant.
 The insurance contract excludes the first 3 months but you weren't aware of that.
The insurance company paid for everything except the first three months. 

3) How much was the monthly repayment? 
Was your total claim €600? 
How was the €350 calculated? 

4) "I spent on solicitor €300."

The Ombudsman does not award legal costs. It does not make sense to use a solicitor to claim €600.  

Brendan


----------



## mixalich139 (23 Mar 2012)

Hi Brendan,
I'll try to simplify it:
1. I was sent on LAY OFF (company had a financial difficulties) from 20/01/2010. "LAY OFF" is when you are still employed by employer, but you can officially get jobseeker's benefit(became short time unemployed). If company don't have a work at the moment and/or cashflow difficulties, company don't fire you but sending on short time LAY OFF.
12/04/2010 I was redundant.
2. Insurance company cover only redundancy, so they not cover LAY OFF period , as they wrote in accordance to the policy I have. I didn't sign any documents with Insurance, I just tick that I would like to have personal loan protection in my loan application. 
The point is that Bank's worker told that I will be covered in case of unemployment. So simply saying he misled me & he even didn't showed me insurance policy (T&C).
3. Monthly repayments €200 per month.
4. I was claiming that Bank misled me during Insurance policy T&C. That's why I am not covered by Insurance for the LAY OFF period. I wanted Bank to cover me 3 month repayments €600 (3*200), because it's Bank's fault.
5. €350 it's just the decision of Ombudsman.
6. Solicitor was dealing just with the Bank (not Ombudsman), because as I was mentioned  Bank was given a real pressure on me.

P.S.: My case is very complicated, because it's going since January 2010 till now. It' a lot lot of things happen along with this case.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (24 Mar 2012)

Hi Mix

The Ombudsman must have offered some explanation for the €350 figure? 

If you were under real pressure due to the bank's mistake and had to consult a solicitor, maybe the Ombudsman should have awarded you those costs. 

Brendan


----------



## sam27 (29 Mar 2012)

Hi there,

Sorry for replying late. Ill only logged into the site this morning and was going to ask you advise in relation to another issue. 

In relation to this one and about me appealing to the High Court - I decided against this as I would have had to do this on my own. To this day, I regret not doing so as the Bank lied through their teeth in relation to this issue. Furthermore, I have not paod back any monies in relation to this loan as Im still unemployed and will not do so until some day the Bank admits they lied.


----------



## Gerry Canning (29 Mar 2013)

sam27 said:


> Hi there,
> 
> Sorry for replying late. Ill only logged into the site this morning and was going to ask you advise in relation to another issue.
> 
> In relation to this one and about me appealing to the High Court - I decided against this as I would have had to do this on my own. To this day, I regret not doing so as the Bank lied through their teeth in relation to this issue. Furthermore, I have not paod back any monies in relation to this loan as Im still unemployed and will not do so until some day the Bank admits they lied.


 Sadly banks have a strong history of lieing and unless you have 3rd party or written documentation there is NO WAY any judge can find for you.
This whole Payment Protection was in uk termed {Protection Racket} Eventually enough pressure was applied and it is now reckoned Uk banks will pay out 25 billion !!!.Here in Roi there is 2 billion of stolen money but remember the statute of limitations and that {our} Ombudsman is funded by Banks.. The Irish Legislation on ppi isthat {its only the little people} so forget about it.!!!


----------

