So, you had already made a claim on the policy ?

What do you think my chances are then?

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

bump

Afternoon

Well my letter to A&L got a responce and they are investigating it.

Funny how when you mention about single premium ploicys and the fact that they got fined £7m for mis-selling and involve FOS the sit up and take notice. Fingers crossed it all goes my way.

Will wait and see, and if not, they will have to wait for the money

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Yes I had, but got laid off again. Went to make another claim and they said I couldn't.

 

Told them I cant pay them then and haven't heard from them since

 

Scrapper Coco

Also the original I have and the copy they sent me makes no reference at all to what the terms of the PPI are so I assume I should be covered for the term of the loan full stop not just 12 months.

 

I am in this position because of the banks and their actions. Not once but twice in less than 2 years. Then they try and hide behind terms that are not even on the documents they sent me.

 

So that is mis-selling in my book. If I have a case then great if I don't then they will have to wait for their money and that's the bottom line.

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

What do you think my chances are then?

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Sorry, Scrapper, I missed your earlier posts.

There has been some talk of being able to reclaim PPI even where a claim has been made. Especially,I would have thought, in circumstances where it hasnt been made clear whether more than one claim could be made. So certainly no harm in trying:)

Sorry, Scrapper, I missed your earlier posts.

 

There has been some talk of being able to reclaim PPI even where a claim has been made. Especially,I would have thought, in circumstances where it hasnt been made clear whether more than one claim could be made. So certainly no harm in trying:)

Thanks CB, appreciated.

I got another letter this morning and it has been passed direct to the insurer to investigate.

I bought the PPI direct from A&L so surely they should be looking into this?

All the insurer is going to do is tell me is that their T&C's state you have to have returned to work for 6 months or more.

There will be no mention the A&L failed to send me them and the application refers to "OVERLEAF" which if you take a look, there isn't anything.

Also the other factor. I have the original agreement and page 2 is completely different to what they sent me.

Looks like a cut and paste job.

I've got a nasty feeling that I am going to be given the run around with them blaming each other and by the time this is resolved I'll have found another job and paid the loan off.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

bump

What was the question, Scrapper

If it is with regards to passing the query to the Insurer.. You were sold the policy by A&L so IMHO, they should be dealing with it.

If it is with regards to the front and page 2 of the agreement being different to the original. then there is something very wrong:)

Thanks Citizen you have saved the day again.

You knew what I was asking all along. I just needed someone else to confirm what I'm thinking. They know they have messed up and tried to cut and paste hoping I didn't have the original. and now I pulled them up on it and also the no terms overleaf they have shifted responsiblilty to the insurer. Which I know is wrong and I have told FOS what they have done. So fingers crossed they will eith er come back and keep paying or even better right it off as a loss

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Thanks Citizen you have saved the day again.

 

You knew what I was asking all along. I just needed someone else to confirm what I'm thinking. They know they have messed up and tried to cut and paste hoping I didn't have the original. and now I pulled them up on it and also the no terms overleaf they have shifted responsiblilty to the insurer. Which I know is wrong and I have told FOS what they have done. So fingers crossed they will eith er come back and keep paying or even better right it off as a loss

 

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Aha, well now. If this is with the FOS, I would just keep sending the FOS the correspondence you are receiving from A&L and let them sort it out for you.

Advise A&L that you have passed their latest correspondence to the FOS.. that is always good for a wind up:D

 

Aha, well now. If this is with the FOS, I would just keep sending the FOS the correspondence you are receiving from A&L and let them sort it out for you.

 

Advise A&L that you have passed their latest correspondence to the FOS.. that is always good for a wind up:D

I'm getting the hang of this. I have been sending them everything I have been sent.

FOS have now contacted the Insurer and A&L but I haven't heard anything yet.

One question I do have though. This morning 3 late payment markers appeared on my credit file from A&L. How can I stop them doing that while this is being investigate? or do I just have to accept they will keep it doing and eventually Default the account while under investigation. Should I write to the Data Controller?

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

I should really check my spelling before I post

Morning all

The insuraner has been in touch this morning but heard nothing from A&L after my letter.

They are basically saying that I've had 12 months so that's it.

The haven't even addresses the items I brough to their attention.

No PPI overleaf

Charging interest on the PPI

The original being different to what they sent me

etc

etc

Just a one page letter with the Term.

That's no good I never recieved them and they aren't overleaf.

I have eight weeks to reply or contact FOS but I've done that and they bloody well no it as it was FOS that contacted them for me.

What should I do next as they are starting to add late payment markers to my credit file and I don't want a Default.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Hi Scrapper, I guess all you can do now is to make a complaint to the FOS. Alternatively you can issue a claim against the company yourself.

HI CB

Thanks for the info.

I have handed FOS everything.

FOS know that the copy A&L sent me is completely different to the original I have.

FOS know that it states see overleaf for PPI Term & Conditions on my original and the copy and there are none at all.

FOS are also aware of the fact that I was charged interest on the PPI which isn't allowed.

I put all this in the letter I sent and FOS have a copy of that as well.

I will contact them again but they take so long to do anything I would have been defaulted by then.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

Sadly, FOS are inundated with claims so yes, you will have to wait your turn.

My OH has been waiting just over 2 years now.. and I understand that pompeyfaith has been waiting even longer. It depends on the complexity of the complaint I guess.

I guess from what you are saying that it is important for you to have a spotless credit history ? In which case, there is no harm in you writing to the FOS explaining this. I doubt it will make any difference, however, if your complaint is upheld then I would say you would have a claim against the bank for any adverse markers they place on your file

You could also, write to the Credit reference agencies explain that there is a serious dispute with the bank and a complaint is now with the FOS. That you will hold them equally responsible for any damage done to your credit reputation in the event that adverse markers are placed against your name. That they should enter a Notice of correction on your file.

let the bank know that you have passed this on to the FOS and give them the reference number. At the same time you could advise that any adverse markers they place on your file that impact your credit history, will result in you taking action against them at a later date.

Morning All

Thanks for the info CB appreciated

I'm going to send the insurers this letter and see what happens. I have a feeling they haven't seen the letter I sent A&L becuase if they had they might have acted slightly differently.

Anyway here it is

Thank you for your letter dated the 7th July 2010.

I am somewhat confused as to what investigation has actually been carried out apart from your good self quoting terms and conditions at me.

From the information you have provided in your letter it is my understanding that you haven’t been in discussions with Alliance and Leicester because if you had you would have no doubt been in possession of all the facts pertaining to my complaint with regards to the PPI which was sold to me 2006. I have attached a copy of the latest letter that I sent to Alliance & Leicester to which I have received no response whatsoever but will clarify just so you a very clear on what matters are still outstanding.

• Interest at 5.5% £1,108.22 was added to the PPI Premium and then added to the credit amount. The House of Lords judged that you are not allowed to make a loan conditional on taking PPI unless you include the costs of PPI as part of the charge for credit and not the credit itself. You did not do this. You added it to the total for credit and then charged me further interest on the premium on top of the interest for the loan. This is illegal.
  

• The application I received from Alliance & Leicester clearly states and I quote: I understand that I am purchasing the product ticked above on the credit provided by you and that the terms relating to the credit for the product can be found within the terms and conditions overleaf in this agreement. There are NO Terms & Conditions overleaf relating to PPI. There is also the little matter of the copy that Alliance & Leicester sent me is not the same as the original I have filed away in a safe place ready to use at a later date if required.
  

As I cannot find any information overleaf to what you are relating to I would like to draw your attention to the following:

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply. If you require further clarification please refer to the office of fair trading website.

• I was under the impression that I would be covered for the full term of the loan should I become unemployed. This is clearly not the case. I have thought that for the last 4 years or more.
  

• It has only become apparent to me after the recent coverage by the media, and following the recent OFT and FSA investigations regarding the mis-selling of PPI by finance companies and my attempt to make a second claim for redundancy that this isn’t the case at all. It has also been brought to my attention that Alliance & Leicester have been fined £7 million pounds for such underhand tactic when selling PPI cover on unsecured loans whether it is in person or online.
  

Taking the above matters into consideration I would request that you enter in discussions with you colleagues at Alliance & Leicester and try to resolve this matter as quickly as possible as I am currently having late payment markers added to my credit file. Any affect this may have on me obtaining credit in the future will have serious consequences for both Genworth Financial and Alliance & Leicester should FOS & the Office of Fair Trading rule in my favour.

You will see from the attached letter what I require to resolve this matter. Either refund the PPI premiums in full plus 8% of continue paying my claim until I find further employment. I would draw your attention once again to the statement relating to terms and conditions overleaf which there are none and the very clear statement from the Office of Fair Trading.

As FOS is already aware of this matter I would also request that you do not advise me to contact Alliance & Leicester as I will not play the tennis blame game. You have been instructed by FOS to investigate this matter and that is what I fully expect from you.

I will give you a further 28 days to respond positively. I believe that this time frame is sufficient for a large company such as yours with its dedicated staff and departments. After that, there will be no further communication from me and I shall make official complaints to the FSA under the unfair contract regulations, FOS for the mis-selling of PPI insurance, Office of Fair Trading & the British Insurance Association and begin legal proceedings against you.

All comments welcome

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

nice letter it is very clear where they have failed so in the post it goes

Good work scrapper keep going

Hi PF

It's gone so let's wait and see what they come up with next. No doubt more bloody time wasting.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco

I think the longer you can keep the dialogue going with them the more likely they are to either trip themselves up allowing you to pounce or give in to get rid of you

Hi all

Sorry for the silence but finally got a responce from the Obudsmum today and it's not good.

I will post what they said later as at present they sent it as a secured PDF file so I have asked for an editable version.

I did call and they advised me that in all Probability A&L did send me the T&C's in the post.

That's pants. There's a strong probabilitythat at some point in the future I will buy a lottery ticket and a Probabilitythat I might win. It's doesnt actually mean it's going to happen or did happen.

They have totally missed the point of me contacting them in the first place.

So I asked her "If a bank tells you they did something you take them at their word for that then" She replied with as I said in all Probability. What sort of an answer is that. I then went on to advise her that as we have learnt the hard way Banks cannot be trusted so her comments are not excuseable.

The agreement is pants and that's already been confirmed on here. It doesn't matter what they said they did. The agreement clearly states that the PPI terms and conditions are overleaf and they are bloody well not. It doesn's matter if or if they did not send them seperatley I know they never sent them as I would have kept them. Period.

There's also the litter matter of them charging me £7K for insurance but only paying out £5K so in effect robbing me blind of £2k

Anyway as soon as I get a proper copy I will post it here and can somebody please advise what steps to take next. A&L have also just destroyed my credit file on that silly arses ruling.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco 8-)

Evening all

Here is what I have been sent by FOS.

Can someone take a look and get back to me. I have some ideas regarding an appeal. For instance A&L being fined £10m due to the mis-selling of PPI for starters. Secondly the point about banks not being the good guys everybody thought they were etc.

Your complaint about Santander UK Plc (Santander)

I am writing to set out my assessment of your complaint.

Background to the complaint

This complaint concerns the sale of a single premium payment protection insurance (PPI) policy in connection with a loan of £22,000, taken out in May 2006. The loan was taken out over a seven year term in order to purchase a car. The PPI policy provided cover for your repayments in the event of disability, unemployment or loss of life.

At the time of sale you were aged 36 and were employed as an IT manager. You have confirmed that in the event of illness you would have benefitted from six months full pay, followed by six months half pay which would be topped up by insurance, this was provided by your employer. In addition to this, your employer provided redundancy benefits. You have confirmed that you have no alternative means of meeting your loan repayments.

In January 2009 you were made redundant, you benefited from the policy for 12 months until December 2009 when you found a new job. You have confirmed that you tried to make a second claim for unemployment in 2010, but this was rejected.

You consider Santander acted unfairly in the way the PPI policy was sold to you. You state that Santander did not provide you with adequate information regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. In addition, you state that Santander failed to adequately explain that you could only claim for a maximum of 12 months in the case of unemployment.

Findings

Before I set out my findings, it may be helpful if I explain the approach that the Financial Ombudsman Service takes when assessing complaints.

We are impartial and independent of both businesses and consumers. We give equal consideration to the information provided by both sides. Where there is a dispute about what happened, we base our decisions on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what we consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence.

When looking at your case, it seems to me that the things I need to consider are broadly the same as to those we set out in the PPI publications section of our website at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/ombudsman-approach.html.

I have carefully considered all the information that you and Santander have provided. I have set out my findings below.

Santander has provided a copy of your fixed-sum loan agreement, which includes details of your PPI policy. The loan agreement contains the following declaration: “I have read, understood and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Account”. By signing this document you have indicated that you did receive the terms and conditions of the PPI policy, and that you have read them. I believe that, on a balance of probabilities, you did receive the full terms and conditions for the PPI policy from Santander before you signed the loan agreement.

You have stated that the loan agreement you returned to Santander, and the copy you kept for your records were different. I have examined these documents and I believe that the only difference is that the copy to return includes boxes for signatures, and these were not necessary on your copy.

This policy was sold on a non-advised basis. You applied for the policy on-line and then you were sent a loan agreement. Santander has provided screen-shots of your online enquiry. While I accept that full details of the PPI policy were not available when you selected “Yes” in response to the statement “I would like Personal Protection”, I do not consider that this would have affected your decision to purchase the PPI policy. The loan application was not concluded until you signed the loan agreement. The loan agreement clearly stated the cost of the PPI policy, and I believe it also included the terms and conditions of the policy. You were given the opportunity to decline the PPI policy at this point, however you opted to “purchase the Accident, Sickness, Unemployment and Life policy” by ticking the relevant box. Alongside this you signed to confirm the following statement: “I understand that I am purchasing the product ticked above…and that the terms relating to the credit for the product can be found within the terms and conditions overleaf in this agreement”. By requiring you to tick a box and provide a signature, I believe that it is fair and reasonable that Santander provided an opportunity for you to reject the PPI product if you did not feel it would be suitable.

During our telephone conversation, you confirmed to me that you had taken out the PPI policy because you believed that there was a chance you would be made redundant. I do not consider that, even if Santander had not provided terms and conditions for the PPI policy, this would have affected your decision to purchase the policy given your circumstances.

I accept that Santander may not have adequately explained the cost of the policy and potential maximum benefit that would be paid in return for your premium. However, even if Santander had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because, due to your circumstances, I think it is more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy if you had understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim.

While I accept that you had excellent benefits with your employer, I do not consider that this is applicable to this complaint as the PPI policy was sold on a non-advised basis.

All things considered, I have not seen sufficient information to suggest there are any other reasons to recommend that your complaint should be upheld.

Conclusions

Because of this, I have to tell you that I am unable to recommend that your complaint should be upheld. I appreciate that this is likely to come as a disappointment to you. I know that this is not the outcome you were hoping for. Nevertheless, I hope that my explanation has been helpful in setting out clearly why I have taken this view.

However, if you disagree with how I have reached my conclusions, please reply by 19 November 2010 – telling me your reasons along with any evidence that you have not already provided and that you think is important to the case. Could you please let me know if you plan to reply fully but do not think you will be able to meet this deadline.

As a reminder, you will also have the right to ask an ombudsman to review the case – as the final stage in our process. But if we do not hear from you by 19 November 2010, I will assume that you have decided not to pursue the complaint further.

Thanks

Scrapper Coco 8-)

Bump

bump

Bump Bump Bump

Can someone look at this before I send it off. Thanks

As already advised I wish to appeal against your decision and the so called balance of probability as you kindly put it.

Firstly I would like you as my adjudicator to answer the following questions:

· Are YOU aware that Alliance and Leicester were fined by the FSA in October 2008?

· Were you aware that it was a record fine for the mis-selling of PPI? Ten Million pounds to be exact but reduced to Seven Million given that Alliance and Leicester settled early.

· Can you please confirm that you were aware of this fact and if so, how you figured this into your findings that the balance of probability Alliance & Leicester did supply me with all the PPI details as you suggested given their failings and misguidance in the same period I applied for my loan online.

· Are you aware that the balance of probability is given the above Alliance & Leicester NEVER sent me the PPI details as they would have you believe?

Even though the statement from the FSA is detailing the sale of PPI by advisors I have it on good authority that this fine applies to all forms of PPI selling where Alliance and Leicester are concerned. They failed in their duty of care to provide all the information available whether it be via telephone or online.

Alliance & Leicester paid the required fine without even feeling the need to appeal. I find that very strange indeed don’t you? To me that confirms what I already know. Alliance & Leicester are trying to pull the wool over FOS eyes in the hope the cards fall in their favour as they can’t afford to be seen doing wrong once again.

So there is no doubt whatsoever, can you confirm that YOU were fully aware of this fact when deducting the balance of probability as you so kindly put it. Not being aware of all the facts is a serious lack of judgement and I will be questioning whether you are fit to be an adjudicator as your lack of knowledge will have serious consequences to the outcome of my complaint.

Moving on. I would now like to question your findings further.

· You consider Santander acted unfairly in the way the PPI policy was sold to you. You state that Santander did not provide you with adequate information regarding the terms and conditions of the policy. In addition, you state that Santander failed to adequately explain that you could only claim for a maximum of 12 months in the case of unemployment.

Santander did NOT provide me with any information regarding the terms and conditions. As already pointed out, the application clearly states in plain ENGLISH “terms and condition overleaf of this agreement” There are none relating to PPI. If it states overleaf they CANNOT be on a completely separate piece of paper.

Taking into account the record fine Alliance & Leicester received for being misleading and underhand couldn’t the balance of probability be that they never sent the terms relating to PPI and they are also misleading FOS?

· We are impartial and independent of both businesses and consumers. We give equal consideration to the information provided by both sides. Where there is a dispute about what happened, we base our decisions on the balance of probabilities – in other words, on what we consider is most likely to have happened in the light of the evidence.

Given that FOS are impartial and independent can you please explain in more detail what information you took into consideration provided by Alliance & Leicester given they have already been fined for misleading and mis-selling PPI to the tune of Seven Million Pounds. We have all been misled by the banks for many years. This has been proven even more so recently given current events. Are the balance of probabilities greater for Alliance & Leicester then myself?

· Santander has provided a copy of your fixed-sum loan agreement, which includes details of your PPI policy. The loan agreement contains the following declaration: “I have read, understood and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Account”. By signing this document you have indicated that you did receive the terms and conditions of the PPI policy, and that you have read them. I believe that, on a balance of probabilities, you did receive the full terms and conditions for the PPI policy from Santander before you signed the loan agreement.

“I have read, understood and agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Account” If you are referring to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement then YES this is true, but how can I be bound by the terms and conditions for the PPI when I have never received them? Is this further evidence that you take Alliance & Leicester at their word when considering the balance of probabilities? You believe that on a balance of probabilities I DID RECEIVE THE FULL TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE PPI BEFORE I SIGNED THE AGREEMENT? Can you please provide me with more detail on how you came to this conclusion? I signed the agreement believing that if I was made redundant I would be covered for the entire term of the loan agreement therefore I would not have been aware that there were separate terms and conditions relating to the PPI and all the exclusions it contained. This only became apparent when I tried to claim for a second time.

· You have stated that the loan agreement you returned to Santander, and the copy you kept for your records were different. I have examined these documents and I believe that the only difference is that the copy to return includes boxes for signatures, and these were not necessary on your copy.

It is clearly visible that Alliance & Leicester have doctored their copy of the agreement. I find it hard to believe that you are unable to see this for yourself given I have had it confirmed that something is not right.

· This policy was sold on a non-advised basis. You applied for the policy on-line and then you were sent a loan agreement. Santander has provided screen-shots of your online enquiry. While I accept that full details of the PPI policy were not available when you selected “Yes” in response to the statement “I would like Personal Protection”, I do not consider that this would have affected your decision to purchase the PPI policy. The loan application was not concluded until you signed the loan agreement. The loan agreement clearly stated the cost of the PPI policy, and I believe it also included the terms and conditions of the policy. You were given the opportunity to decline the PPI policy at this point, however you opted to “purchase the Accident, Sickness, Unemployment and Life policy” by ticking the relevant box. Alongside this you signed to confirm the following statement: “I understand that I am purchasing the product ticked above…and that the terms relating to the credit for the product can be found within the terms and conditions overleaf in this agreement”. By requiring you to tick a box and provide a signature, I believe that it is fair and reasonable that Santander provided an opportunity for you to reject the PPI product if you did not feel it would be suitable.

“While I accept that full details of the PPI policy were not available when you selected “Yes” in response to the statement “I would like Personal Protection” If you accept that the details of the PPI were not available WHY have you NOT ruled in my favour? When applying for any online funding whether it be a loan of credit card the lender has a duty of care to make all the information available at the time of application. This includes PPI terms and conditions. Failure to do so is a breach of the distant selling regulations. As they failed to send me anything remotely relating to PPI terms & conditions they have breached this regulation and they are fully aware of this. A company that has been fined a record amount by the FSA will mislead anyone if they thought they could be caught out again.

“I understand that I am purchasing the product ticked above…and that the terms relating to the credit for the product can be found within the terms and conditions overleaf in this agreement”. By requiring you to tick a box and provide a signature, I believe that it is fair and reasonable that Santander provided an opportunity for you to reject the PPI product if you did not feel it would be suitable. Ticking a box and providing a signature doesn’t mean that Alliance & Leicester followed the correct procedures. Why would I cancel a PPI policy I thought WOULD cover me for the entire duration of my unemployment. Does this also fall into the balance of probability?

· During our telephone conversation, you confirmed to me that you had taken out the PPI policy because you believed that there was a chance you would be made redundant. I do not consider that, even if Santander had not provided terms and conditions for the PPI policy, this would have affected your decision to purchase the policy given your circumstances. If I had been fully aware that I was being charged £6560.40 for cover that only paid out an £4726.08 an didn’t cover me for the entire loan period should I have not found employment then I would have cancelled this policy immediately as I could have got cheaper and more cost effective cover elsewhere. I am now effectively being charged for a policy I can no longer claim on. Is this another balance of probability conclusion?

· I accept that Santander may not have adequately explained the cost of the policy and potential maximum benefit that would be paid in return for your premium. However, even if Santander had done so, I am not persuaded this would have affected your decision to take out the policy. I say this because, due to your circumstances, I think it is more likely than not that you would still have purchased the policy if you had understood exactly how much the policy would cost and the potential amount you would receive in benefit in the event of a claim. Please see above answer as this is effectively the same answer you can before. Another balance of probability.

· While I accept that you had excellent benefits with your employer, I do not consider that this is applicable to this complaint as the PPI policy was sold on a non-advised basis. I fail to see what this has to do with my employer? I am somewhat confused as to your answer for this question given YOU are the one who requested these details from me. I did not supply them to you from the beginning. I suppose this is another balance of probability answer?

Taking all the above factors into consideration and FOS “balance of probability” stance. I would like to make this an official complaint as well as lodge an appeal. It is simply not good enough that FOS are prepared to rule in favour of an organisation who received and record fine from the FSA for the underhand and corrupt way in which they sold PPI to potential customers. This ruling by the adjudicator is nothing more than fiscal. If I was presented with the same information I would make dam sure I was fully aware of the said companies background before I made a balance of probability ruling given all the media publicity surrounding the misspelling of PPI by BANKS we have been brought up to believe were honest and trustworthy. As we are finding out the hard way this couldn’t be further from the truth.

If you would like to discuss this matter further please feel free to contact me by phone.

Many thanks as always

Scrapper Coco 8-)

Morning people

Today is a great day as my persistence has finally paid off even thouhg Santander can appeal but fingers crossed they won't.

I received the following email today from FOS regarding the A&L PPI issue

Following further investigation, I have recommended that Santander uphold your complaint.

I have recommended that Santander use the Financial Ombudsman Services' standard approach when calculating redress. This approach is outlined on our web-site at http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/ppi/redress.html#1. In summary, redress will normally involve five main considerations:

• A calculation of the monthly payments that you have actually paid towards the overall loan in excess of those you would have needed to make, if the original loan had been sold without the PPI policy;
  
• A restructuring of the loan going forward so that the amount owed, the monthly repayments, the term and the charges reflect those that would have applied, if the original loan had been sold without the PPI policy;
  
• The cancellation of the PPI policy - with the rebate in premiums being set against the costs incurred by Santander in paying the redress. It is possible that any redress you receive would be set against your outstanding debt. In addition, as you have claimed on this policy, your redress will be reduced by the amount that has been paid out from the policy;
  
• The addition of interest (normally at 8% per annum) to any excess payments you have made - from the time each payment was made to the point that Santander pays the excess payments back to you.
  

If Santander does not agree to the settlement, it is likely that an ombudsman will review the complaint and make a final decision on the case. However, I may change the decision if Santander provides further information that may change my mind otherwise.

I note that you may have had a successful claim on your policy. If you have, this claim will be deducted from any redress that you receive if your complaint is upheld.

As a reminder, you do have the right to ask an ombudsman to review the case - as the final stage in our process.

If you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Scrapper Coco 8-)8-)8-)

Totally bizarre isnt it ? I am not sure why they are allowing the company to reimburse themselves costs for dealing with the reclaim though ?