Despite being around for decades it was not until 1998, however, that it became apparent that PPI policies were being widely mis-sold by unscrupulous companies in the financial sector including almost all of the main high street banks. “Which?”, the consumer protection magazine, is often given credit for uncovering the PPI mis-selling scandal by highlighting the expense of PPI policies and the very poor claims settlement record. They deemed PPI policies largely ineffective and very poor value for money.

Many leading newspapers picked up and reported the scandal in the press between 1998 and 2004, publishing numerous shocking case studies of people who tried to claim on their PPI policy but were refused a payout, or who had been told they had to have PPI as a condition of a loan or credit card agreement when in fact this was not the case.

The particular Financial Services Authority (FSA) stepped in at the end of 2004 and therefore began to regulate the actual sale of consumer insurance policies, including PPI. In 2005 the CAB (Citizens advice bureau) published a report showcasing the issues with the systematic mis-selling of PPI which dragged the scandal even more ahead into the minds of consumers and also and the financial regulator as well.

In November 2005, the FSA wrote to all leading bodies in the banking and financial sector highlighting their understanding of the problems with PPI mis-selling and recommending them to create substantial adjustments and to compensate those people who had been affected by their specific unscrupulous actions. The time since 2005 has witnessed one bank after another exposed in the scandal and many of the primary banks and financial institutions penalized a large amount of cash by the FSA in response.

In 2010 the major banks brought an appeal to the High Court and over the period whilst the actual High Court hearing was pending most of the banks refused to progress PPI claims putting consumers waiting as well as out of pocket with regards to settlement due. Nevertheless, the particular appeal process ended in 2011 with the banks being unsuccessful in their pledge to actually man-oeuvre away from their own accountability to compensate customers over the mis-selling of PPI.

Just what exactly does all this imply to you? As we move into 2012, banks have been strongly told to proactively cooperate in the computation and also settlement of compensation for those buyers who have been impacted by PPI mis-selling. Though the window of opportunity is unlikely to be open for a long time, therefore individuals who have PPI attached to any type of loan, credit card or perhaps mortgage need to get their claim ahead as soon as they possibly can if they really feel it was actually mi-sold. Hence examine the paperwork associated with any kind of loan, credit card or perhaps mortgage you took out during a period of no less than 10 years and consider whether you have cause for a compensation claim with regard to mis-selling.

Go Claim PPI have a 100% success rate at helping people to gain compensation for valid PPI Claims in the UK.

If you decide to file a complaint to your bank or lender they have five days to acknowledge it, then a further eight weeks to respond to you about whether they will uphold your complaint. If your complaint is rejected or you’re not happy with the outcome, then it’s time to take further action.

Further actions you can take if your PPI claim is rejected

Pursue your case with the bank or lender
A lot of complaints are rejected first time around. If this is the case, reiterate your case by attempting to write your claim again, restating the cause of your complaint.

Use a legal representative
If you’re struggling to instigate your PPI claim alone, consider using a claims specialist service. Their legal knowledge and experience can put pressure on the banks and often prove to be far more successful than those who attempt to go alone.

In some cases, claims specialists also offer a no win, no fee service which means you only pay for their time if your claim is successful.

Take the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS)
If the bank has ultimately rejected your claim, yet you still feel you have a legitimate PPI claim to receive compensation then it’s time you refer the matter to the FOS. The FOS reviews every PPI cover claim they receive. Last financial year they received approximately 100,000 PPI complaints and upheld around 75% in the customers favour. However with 5000 PPI complaints a week, this can be a lengthy process.

Precision Claims are a claims management company, helping customers claim back payment protection insurance owed to them.

In itself, PPI isn’t a poor product. However, claims have been made due to various mis-selling practices by lenders, agents and brokers that have long been rife throughout the financial services sector for about the last 15 years. The Financial Services Authority, or ‘FSA’, issued a new handbook at the end of 2010, identifying the most common mis-selling practices. The FSA described these practices as ‘failings’ and laid down guidelines for lenders to compensate those customers who were mis-sold PPI.

Banks initially challenged the legality of the FSA’s measures by way of a judicial revi

Some of the worst mis-selling practices were associated with ‘single premium PPI’, which was banned by the FSA in May 2009. This was when the policy was effectively payable by a lump sum payment, being added to the financial loan as a ‘one-off’ premium at inception.

Lenders and brokers often recommended single premium PPI without taking reasonable steps to ascertain whether this had been appropriate for the customer. In reality, single premium PPI was a particularly bad deal for the consumer for several reasons.

Firstly, it was frequently automatically included in the overall loan quotation. Sometimes, this meant that the consumer was completely in the dark over the existence of the insurance policy. Customers should have been informed about the policy from the outset as well as having the cost of the policy told to them separately to the overall cost of the loan.

Secondly, the item was poor value. Less expensive PPI was usually available elsewhere, but customers were rarely informed about this. Actually, they had been regularly given the impression that the product was compulsory, whereas, in fact, it had been optional.

Thirdly, customers would frequently not be entitled to a pro-rata refund in cases where the loan was repaid early. Put simply, the customer may have purchased payment protection for the duration of the term at the start. However, if they re-financed at some stage throughout the term, they would not have been allowed any rebate of the PPI for the remaining period.

This sort of PPI policy was clearly unsuitable for customers who were planning to re-finance during the term, or who were about to receive some dividend, such as inheritance, enabling them to repay the balance. However, the absence of pro-rata refunds was seldom revealed to customers, effectively giving them little choice in the matter. Brokers often simply failed to make enquiries as to the chances of the loan being repaid early, or the need for flexibility generally.

Fourthly, lenders frequently failed to disclose to the customer that single premium PPI would be added to the total amount provided within the agreement, or that interest would be payable on the premium. This often made the loan much more expensive than the customer realised.

Finally, the term of the cover for single premium PPI was often shorter compared to term of the loan itself. Customers were rarely advised of this fact, whereas they ought to have been given the consequences of this mis-match explained to them. For instance, in the event the loan was for five years, however the period of cover was just three years, the consumer would have been ineligible to claim if they were made redundant in the fourth or fifth year of the loan. Many customers were not aware of this. Essentially, single premium PPI was probably the most glaring illustration of a poor product for the consumer in the PPI market. It is also the area in which mis-selling practices were most common and most grave. It was for these motives that the FSA banned the sale of single premium PPI alongside loans.

If the customer acquired a single premium PPI policy, it is likely they will have a powerful claim for a refund. Because the whole premium was front-loaded, interest would have been charged on the entire PPI element of the loan from the start. This makes the interest element of your claim substantial.

You need to bear in mind that if, were it not for the mis-selling by the lender, you would probably have taken a different type of PPI policy (for example, one payable by regular monthly instalments) you will only be entitled to reclaim the difference between your single premium PPI policy and the policy that you would have otherwise bought. This might limit the amount of your compensation.

If you believe that you would not have taken out any kind of PPI were it not for the mis-selling, then you will need to help make this clear when making your claim. In some instances, PPI of any sort would have been entirely inappropriate for that particular customer. For instance, you might have been unemployed or had a pre-existing medical problem, making you ineligible to claim on the policy.

Single premium PPI was the worst example of mis-selling in the PPI market. However, there are numerous other instances of mis-selling practices by lenders or brokers. You might be entitled to the full refund of the PPI premiums, plus interest.

For more guidance on mis-sold Cheltenham and Gloucester PPI claims or any other financial institutions and banks visit PPI Claims Online

Loan PPI

For loan PPI, the amount of your compensation is going to be determined by the amount of the monthly installments of the loan, exactly how many payments have already been made and the proportion of the loan repayments which relate to PPI. Would you have purchased PPI at all?

Where you would not have bought any loan PPI policy but for the mis-selling by the lender, you are entitled to be refunded the total amount you have paid for PPI, plus interest. For instance, imagine that you took a 5 year loan, on which the loan repayments were 200 per month. If the PPI premiums were 25% of the loan repayments, this would amount to 50 monthly in PPI premiums. If 20 months of the loan had elapsed, in other words, you would have made 20 payments, the amount of PPI that you would be entitled to have refunded is 1000 (50 x 20 months). Additionally, you will be entitled to claim interest on that sum. Interest is calculated at 8% annually on each PPI premium for the number of months it has been due.

Could you have bought a different type of PPI?

The situation differs where, but for the mis-selling by the lender, you would probably have bought a different PPI policy. In other words, you may have still purchased PPI, albeit a different sort of policy. In this scenario, you would probably only be eligible for a reimbursement of the PPI premiums paid (plus interest) less the amount you would have paid for the alternative PPI policy.

For example, imagine that, as in the example above, you had been mis-sold a PPI policy with regards to which the loan instalments were 200 per month, the PPI part of which was 50 and 20 months had elapsed. Had the PPI policy not been mis-sold, you might still have considered PPI a sensible option. However, you might have purchased a cheaper policy instead, for instance, one on which the PPI element of the monthly loan repayments was 25. In this instance, you would simply be eligible for the difference between the 1,070 and the amount that you would have spent on the alternative policy. With this example, you would have spent 500 on this alternative policy, so your refund would be halved. You will just be entitled to 500 (plus interest).

This situation applies equally to a scenario in which you were mis-sold a ‘front-loaded’ single premium PPI policy and, were it not for the mis-selling, you would most likely have purchased a typical payment PPI policy instead. Within this scenario, you’d be entitled simply to the difference between the amount you paid for the single premium PPI policy and the price of the standard payment PPI policy that you would otherwise have purchased.

Have you had a claim on a policy rejected?

Where you make a claim against the policy that has been rejected, though you could reasonably have expected it to have been paid, you are qualified to receive the higher of the full amount of the PPI premiums paid (1,070 in the example above) as well as the value of the claim. Put simply, when your claim on the policy will have given out more than the sum you have paid in PPI premiums, you will be entitled to this amount in the alternative, plus interest. This provides you two options. The lender should calculate which plan is more favourable to you and then pay you this sum.

Have you re-financed?

Where you were mis-sold just one premium PPI policy, which was subsequently cancelled to re-finance or consolidate a connected loan, your compensation should take account of the cumulative impact of the mis-selling. Many mis-sold PPI policies were effectively ‘rolled up’ into a subsequent loan, which also included PPI. Indeed, this policy could also have been mis-sold. Therefore, for those who have re-financed on a number of occasions, you’re likely to be eligible for substantial compensation.

Credit card PPI

The amount of compensation to which you will be entitled from your mis-sold PPI policy relates to a credit card can be difficult to calculate, because it is more likely to depend upon variations in the balance. Credit card PPI is often charged monthly as a proportion of the balance, for instance, 69p per 100. Therefore, when your credit card balance is prone to significant swings, you may well have paid more for PPI in certain months than others. Essentially, however, the principle remains the same as you are still entitled to be reimbursed whatever you have paid for PPI, plus interest. You may be also entitled to claim interest on the notional balance for the months in which, were it not for the mis-sold PPI, your balance could have been in credit.

For more guidance on mis-sold Bank of Scotland PPI claims or other bank or financial institutions visit PPI Claims Online

By itself, PPI isn’t a bad product. However, claims have been made because of various mis-selling practices by lenders, agents and brokers that have been rife throughout the financial services sector for about the past 15 years. The Financial Services Authority (FSA), issued a new handbook at the end of 2010, identifying the most typical mis-selling practices. The FSA described these practices as ‘failings’ and laid down guidelines for lenders to compensate those customers who were mis-sold PPI.

Banks initially challenged the legality of the measures by the FSA through a judicial review.

Some of the worst mis-selling practices related to ‘single premium PPI’, which had been banned by the FSA in May 2009. This was where the policy was effectively payable by a lump sum payment, being added onto the loan as a ‘one-off’ premium at inception.

Lenders and brokers often recommended single premium PPI without taking reasonable steps to find out whether this had been appropriate for the customer. In reality, single premium PPI was a particularly bad deal for the consumer for several reasons.

Firstly, PPI was frequently automatically contained in the overall loan quotation. Sometimes, this led to the situation where the consumer was completely unaware of the presence of the insurance policy. Customers should have been told about the policy from the outset as well as having the price of the policy told to them separately to the overall price of the loan.

Secondly, the item was poor value. Much cheaper PPI was usually available elsewhere, but customers were rarely informed about this. In fact, they had been regularly given the impression that this product was compulsory, whereas, in reality, it was optional.

Thirdly, customers would frequently not be entitled to a pro-rata refund in the event that the loan was repaid early. Put simply, the consumer may have paid for payment protection throughout the term at the outset. However, if they re-financed at some stage during the term, they might not have been entitled to any rebate of the PPI for the remaining period.

This type of PPI policy was clearly unsuitable for customers who were likely to re-finance at some point during the term, or who had been about to receive some dividend, like inheritance, enabling them to repay the balance. However, the absence of pro-rata refunds was seldom revealed to customers, effectively providing them with little choice in the matter. Brokers often simply failed to ask about the chances of the money being repaid early, or the need for flexibility generally.

Fourthly, lenders frequently did not disclose to the customer that single premium PPI would be added to the amount provided under the agreement, or that interest would become payable on the premium. This often made the loan much more expensive than the customer realised.

Finally, the length of the cover for single premium PPI was often shorter than the term of the loan itself. Customers were rarely advised about this fact, whereas they ought to have had the consequences of the mis-match told to them. For instance, if the loan was for five years, but the duration of cover was just three years, the customer would have been ineligible to claim if they were made redundant in the fourth or fifth year of the loan. Many customers were not aware of this. In essence, single premium PPI was probably the most glaring illustration of a poor product for the consumer in the PPI market. It was also the area in which mis-selling practices were most frequent and most grave. Therefore, it was for such reasons that the FSA banned the sale of single premium PPI alongside loans.

If the customer acquired a single premium PPI policy, it is very likely that you will have a strong claim for a refund. Because the whole premium was front-loaded, interest will have been charged on the entire PPI component of the loan from the start. This will make the interest part of the claim substantial.

You should bear in mind that if, but for the mis-selling by the lender, you would have decided on a different sort of PPI policy (such as, one payable by regular monthly instalments) you may only be eligible to reclaim the difference between your single premium PPI policy and the policy you would have otherwise bought. This may reduce the amount of your compensation.

If you believe that you may not have obtained any kind of PPI but for the mis-selling, then you will need to make this clear when generating your claim. In some instances, PPI of any type will have been entirely inappropriate for that particular customer. For example, you might have been unemployed or may have a pre-existing medical problem, causing you to be ineligible to claim on the policy.

Single premium PPI was the worst example of mis-selling in the PPI market. However, there are numerous other instances of mis-selling practices by lenders or brokers. You may be qualified for a full refund of the PPI premiums, plus interest.

For additional advice on mis-sold HSBC PPI claims or other financial institutions and banks visit PPI Claims Online

What has since been shown to be the case, credit card providers had been selling PPI policy cover as necessary, or devoid of the prior knowledge or approval from the consumer included in the credit card bundle. This approach resulted in extra monthly fees in the form of PPI premiums, while supplying very little in terms of tangible benefit. Though PPI itself can be useful, the majority of those affected by the PPI mis-selling situation have found it to represent poor value for money, especially when purchased from the lender, and as a complicated, often unwanted item.

For credit card customers, PPI is actually commonly seen as a waste of money. The payment amounts on individual credit cards tend to be set at manageable amounts, despite the high levels of interest payable, and commonly the dangers of temporary default which is then met, while damaging to your credit score, shouldn’t result in excessive personal difficulty. It is debatable in these situations as ti if an ordinarily prudent customer would contemplate PPI to represent a valuable extra, not to mention the thousands of credit card customers who had been sold without their knowledge PPI, or who were misled into believing it had been a necessary step for verifying the credit card sign up.

The mis-selling of PPI policies has involved countless thousands of consumers across the country. Whilst the Financial Services Authority, the OFT and also the High Court have all stated that PPI mis-selling is not acceptable, there remains numerous consumers with unresolved claims for PPI compensation.

If you believe you may have been mis-sold PPI cover, get in touch with us today to and one of our specialist advisers will call you back to discuss your case. Remember we offer a no win no fee service meaning if we take on your case and don’t win that it won’t cost you a penny.

To get more advice on mis-sold HBOS PPI claims or other financial institutions and banks visit PPI Claims Online