Thanks for this - it certainly makes things a lot clearer about what I can and cannot use as evidence in the case of possible miss-selling, so I've saved these for future reference, next time I get confused Most of the reasons listed don't apply in my case, but certainly some of them do Thanks again

Fortunately, I've got a box upstairs with 10 years of incoming corresepondence about anything important relating to household and finances So, I've spent the last couple of days rummaging through the files of Bank Statements, CC Statements and everything else that looks like PPI may have (or could have) been applied both with and without my knowledge. The aim of which is to possible whistle off some SARs, where appropriate. But in all of this I'm getting more and more confused over what constitutes miss-selling and therefore if I can or cannot make a claim. I need someone to help me understand, just so I am clear. So, is it a case of:- PPI is bad, therefore banks shouldn't have sold it and I can claim miss-selling or I need to demonstrate some particular circumstances that would have rendered me ineligible at the time it was taken out (ie pre-existing medical condition Etc) or I need to demonstrate (somehow?) that I was not made aware that PPI was optional, or that I could have got insurance cover elsewhere or I need to demonstrate (somehow?) that I was given no choice but to take out PPI What happens if I made an informed decision (to take out cover) at that time, but was maybe unaware of the long term implications and now I feel raped by a decision made all those years ago For instance Firstly, I have 10 years of MBNA Credit Card statements, for a card that I took out (at least) 4 years earlier. Using the CAG Compound Interest spreadsheet, I've calculated that PPI has cost over £14k in these 10 years, plus an estimated £17k for the previous 4 years. I have no recollection over the original decision about PPI cover, what was said or how it was sold. Have I got a case here? How do I prove that it was miss-sold, if at all? Secondly, I have found a loan agreement for my wife from '06, that shows a single premium PPI at 46% of the original sum borrowed. This loan was settled in '08, as some cash from elsewhere became available. Today she's absolutely no recollection of i) taking out the loan and how, ii) what was said to her about PPI if anything and iii) if she was coerced, advised, decided to take out PPI, or didn't tick a box on the Net. Given my queries above where do we stand with making claims? Sorry for this and I know there are some basic issues here, but I'm just confused by what I can and cannot claim for (if anything) Thanks in anticipation

OK, I understand where you're coming from, but please understand that on some other forums I use, naming and shaming is strictly verboten. She is dealing with Sytner Finance, who sold the finance on behalf of Toyota Finance. It is Sytner who are playing Billy Big Balls and part-time police detectives in caligraphy

I was hoping not to get into a naming scenario, as this after all a public Forum and we're not yet finished with this, so can I ask why it makes any difference to name them?

She is 100% certain is not her signature and I am sure that if I put samples up here, including the forgery, then 90% would agree they are not the same. I am of the opinion however that no-one will state with 100% clarity that the signature is not hers, so where there is doubt, there's someone who will exploit it. She is being told that the Needs Assessment actually is required (ie verbal) but document she signed is not required (by the FSA) BTW, there were no pre-existing conditions. See my post above for the original claim. It wasn't a car salesman that dealt with the finance, but an in-house business manager

Her claim was a bit of a punt and she didn't follow the course of action defined by the Caggers (unaware at the time) so with all the recent discussions about PPI, she wrote to the Lender without giving a specific reason for miss-selling. However, she told me that at the time she felt confused by the need for PPI (and concerned that the loan would be declined if she didn't agree) and that it was easier to simply say yes. However in the bundle of papers returned to us (by the Lender) the Needs Assessment (with the forged signature) she has appeared to have agreed to take out cover as "her family is not in a position to repay her loan if she died".... Rather strange for someone who has insurances that would cover the loan by a factor of 20 to 30 Maybe the 30 day rule is there for the consfusion aspect, but she is still adamant she was not asked all of the questions of the Needs document and she nevr signed it If we are at the end, then so be it. A lesson learnt the hard way. Fortunately this is the first of 3 we are pursuing with various lenders (the rest we have followed the advice defined on this site)

I am interested to hear views about possible options associated with a rejected PPI claim (miss-selling) recently received. A somewhat long story here so I’ll be as brief as possible My wife took out PPI cover when buying a new car in March 08. In November 11, she wrote to the Lender claiming miss-selling of PPI in the dealership. The response rejected the claim enclosing some papers in support of the rejection (original finance agreement etc). One of the documents sent to us was a “Needs Assessment” (essentially a questionnaire) which the Lender claims summarised my wife’s requirements at the time of the sale. This document had been signed by my wife, to confirm that the questions had been asked and she agreed with the recommendations being made. The only problem for my wife is that the signature on the document was not hers (in other words it’s a forgery) and whilst it bears some similarities it’s not even close… She responded, saying: 1) she was not only miss-sold, but the documents provided reinforce the claim; 2) She had not seen the Needs document before and has no recollection of being asked the questions; 3) The signature on the Needs document is not hers. In doing so, she didn’t make any outright accusations of forging signatures but asked the Lender to further investigate and reconsider in light of significant differences in the paperwork (signatures) The Lender has written again, essentially saying (paraphrasing) · The Needs Assessment is not a requirement of the FSA (sections of the FSA code have been quoted). Therefore it is irrelevant to the claim · Everyone’s signature varies, therefore she signed · She had 30 days cooling off to reconsider · The Lender has sold 200k+ vehicles, with only one successful claim made against them · The employee concerned is highly respected with no previous history Etc · Claim rejected · The Ombudsman will take 12 months to assess and will form the same view I have interpreted this as “we followed the FSA rules. You could've cancelled within the 30 days (but didn’t). We are big boys, so don’t mess with us. Wife wants to give up on the claim, but is very angry that her “signature” has been forged and has been fraudulently used (irrespective of the reason) and wants "something done" What are the recommended next steps? Generically , I do not know if this is simply a re-worded standard response, so I’m interested to learn what course of action is typically recommended after rejection by the lender TIA

Oops! Double post!

OK, I understand your position a little better now and agree that maybe the approach that IMS21 is suggesting in the post above is the way forward Based on what you’ve stated, it could be that the Claims Management Company (CMC ) could be trying it on with you after they’ve discovered that the claim has been settled.... Although on the face of it, the CMC has not abided by their own contractual terms and that the Bank have no record of their involvement, this doesn’t necessarily mean that they’ve done nothing on your behalf. Therefore you should ask yourself this: Did the Bank suddenly decide to write to you and ask you to complete some paperwork about miss-selling, or did an event occur that prompted them to do so? Although the Bank has denied any correspondence, something must have happened for them to contact you. I have say that, despite what you’ve said, the basic facts are --> You engaged the CMC --> The claim was settled So, I still don’t really fancy your chances of success here... The reality of your issue is that either the T&Cs of the agreement (or any T&Cs on the back of the invoice) will define when they expect it to be settled, so you need to act in a timescale that is consistent with their expectation of when you’ll pay. The problem with this is that (being as you are a member of the general public) they will probably expect settlement within 30 days or maybe by return. Therefore the SAR timescales suggested by IMS may not be consistent with the CMCs expectation of payment Therefore, my recommendation would be one of the following Assuming you haven’t sat on the invoice for too long, write to the CMC acknowledging receipt of their invoice and asking them to provide copies of the correspondence they exchanged with the lender to allow you to be satisfied that it was their actions (and not yours) that have resulted in the claim being settled. In doing so you could refer to the clauses you’ve identified above (and any other juicy bits in their T&Cs) Or Send the invoice back to the CMC, with a letter rejecting it. In doing so, you should state that they have failed to comply with the clauses you’ve identified above, therefore rendering the “contract” null and void (make sure that you have read the termination clauses first). The first option is a delaying tactic and will probably not get what you want. The second option should force them to define their actions (they will re-submit the invoice) and they will possibly justify thier involvement. DO NOT expect them to accept that the contract is null and void... If you are still not happy, you can continue to reject their invoice, but at some point they will take alternative action to recover what they ligitimately believe to be their professional fee (ie: CCJ) HTH, but I doubt it..... BTW: My disclaimer still applies.

I need some guidance over how far back (into history) I can reasonably chase lenders for miss-selling PPI - I’ve searched the forum on this subject, but nothing seems apparent I have systematically avoided taking out PPI for the last 10 years as I both saw through the unnecessary nature of the cover being offered and I have been in a position with my employment to cushion me from any illness/loss of income. However, my awareness over this was borne out of experience and before this I have 2 cases where I entered into agreements, that included PPI Case 1 was a loan agreement with my (current) bank. This loan was taken out in (circa) 1997 and completed in 2000. Re-paid in full with no issues. Case 2, was a credit card agreement that I entered in 1997/8 (ish), that I finally closed in 2010 Before I go down the SAR route, I’m interested to learn what I can realistically chase here. My guess is that Case 1 is so far back in history, all information will have been destroyed and will probably have been subject to a 6 year record retention I think that Case 2 maybe stronger, as the account was only closed 18 months ago. A rough calculation on this, shows that (applying the compound interest rate of the CC) a claim could be valued at around £12k to £20k, depending on how far back PPI can be claimed What are the views about chasing, as they both are historically very old agreements? TIA

Disclaimer: Before you read this, the following are anecdotal comments by me and should not be interpreted as fact. I do however understand and operate with contract law Your likelihood of successfully rejecting the claimed amount will be limited by your comment "I returned the forms & that was the last I heard from them" For the purposes of this post, I will refer to "them" as "XYZ" If you filled in information about your bank/lender/PPI policy Etc, signed it and returned the form to XYZ then you have most likely entered a contract and committed to XYZ's terms and conditions (allowing XYZ to charge you xx% of any successful claim) If the bank have written direct to you, after XYZ launched a claim on your behalf and you then did a bucket load of form filling, then this is irrelevant to the point you make (you should have sent the bank's correspondence to XYZ). The fact that XYZ have "done nothing" is irrelevant, if your are bound by their terms and conditions. It would appear that you have fallen into the trap of believing that you need a claim recovery company/law firm to pursue the recovery of your miss-sold PPI. Regretably this is not the case and I beleive that there are dozens (if not 100s) of firms that are exploiting the general public's lack of awareness over what needs to be done to recover PPI. By your actions, you have proven that you did not need XYZ. Therefore it appears that you may be bound by XYZs T&Cs and therefore you are liable to them for the amount they've asked for. Obviously you could challenge, but you have to weigh up the likelihood of success, given the comment I've quoted from you above - if XYZ are prepared to pursue Fatcat Bonus Bank Plc, how aggresive do you think they will be against the little guy - ie you!. In other words, you're stuffed.... Ultimately, a £1k invoice may be a bitter pill to swallow over this. Sorry!

Thanks for the comment and apologies fore ther appalling grammer in my original post Given my comments about NRAM & Virgin do you recommend he simply send the SAR to Northern Rock ( as the original lender) at their registered address (Newcastle)? Thanks

Hi. Newcomer here, seeking advice on an issue relating to PPI My son took out with Northern Rock 5 years ago. He took out this loan via the Internet and took out PPI. The loan was cleared within 24 months (agreed term) with no issues. He has recently been contacted by Northern Rock Asset Management (NRAM), seeking his authorisation to recover the PPI element of the loan. Papers sent by NRAM state that they will charge 30% of any successful claim to cover their costs. Although my son knows how, when, who with and how much the loan related to, has not retained records of the agreement. So, without NRAM he doesn’t know how to proceed. Investigations by me indicate that although the loan was with Northern Rock, this section of the (Northern Rock) business was sold to Virgin Money and that NRAM took the bad debt. My view is that if he believes he was miss-sold PPI, then his claim is most probably with Virgin and that NRAM are simply offering a service that he can actually perform himself, but NRAM appear to have implied that they are the only route to making a claim Can any one offer me advice about how this can be taken forward? - Any views about the relationship between Virgin and NRAM? - If Virgin is now deemed as the provider, how can he get the details of the account to start the PPI claim process? - If NRAM are the provider, can the charge for resolving this? Thanks in advance