Self-employed automatically considered a basis for PPI mis-selling?

[Hannay100]

I am in the process of preparing to reclaim the PPI payments on a particular credit card account.

 

I requested a copy of my original application form in order to see how the cover was originally applied to the account, and I have now received this.

 

It was a postal application, which I had already believed I recalled being the case, and the PPI option box was not pre-ticked

- I ticked it myself as I had always previously believed cover to be a useful safety net.

 

I was therefore not *sold* PPI but added it voluntarily, though I understand there is/was still an obligation to review a postal application and bring to notice anything untoward.

 

I was never contacted, just approved and sent the card/account with PPI in place

 

I made the application as self-employed, ticking the appropriate box. I now have the following question about this, which I would appreciate any knowledgeable answers to please.

 

I think I have seen it said widely including a couple of official websites, that self-employed status is in fact one of the more strong reasons

why a PPI policy is considered to be mis-sold, the protection either not applying at all or if it does then only to a very limited degree of benefit.

 

Is this correct in any strict manner, or is it just a fingers-crossed kind of thing?

 

If it is a firm fact I should clearly slant my claim entirely in that direction, however I do not want to sideline anything useful in a different regard if it is not.

 

Many thanks for any views on this.

[Hannay100]

A few weeks ago I had occasion to complain to my credit card people about a refund of a questioned transaction.

 

I received a response that was only partly satisfactory, and in my further words I remarked just casually that it would be a suitable goodwill gesture

to reimburse the questionable transaction in full as, for example, the amount that I still regarded as being due was in fact dwarfed by the sum

I must already have paid in PPI over the years for example.

There was no actual connection with my PPI, I was just using that figuratively as a comparison of scale.

 

About a week afterward I received a standard letter from a different department expressing concern that I was dissatisfied with my PPI,

and asking for a form to be filled in so they could respond to my complaint about it being mis-sold.

 

I had made no such complaint at all, though presumably was taken the wrong way when making my earlier comment.

 

I wrote confirming that I had not complained and was not asking for an investigation, and I did not complete/return the forms requested for an investigation to take place.

 

Just last week I nevertheless received a findings-letter responding to *my complaint* and confirming in some detail that my PPI

had been looked at very closely and it had been determined that there had not been any mis-selling,

and that a reimbursement of payments would not be entertained.

 

My question is this:

 

For a quite separate reason I am actually now in the process of arranging to reclaim my PPI payments

as contrary to what is said in this unrequested correspondence/investigation I now believe there are strong grounds.

 

Does this recent spurious investigation however impact upon my ability to make a for-real claim now,

or can I just for example write in further acknowledgement dismissing its findings as irrelevant as no complaint was made in the first place .

.. or just entirely ignore it anyway even?

 

I am looking for safety here, don’t want some unknown small piece of legislation to turn round and bite me at the eleventh hour

by saying there’s just been an investigation and that stands.

 

No doubt it will still be rejected in any case and I will then take it to FOS,

however I don't unknowingly want anything wobbly going on from the outset anyway.

 

Thanks.

[citizenB]

Just continue with your own claim.. first via the bank then via the FOS if the Bank refuses to acknowledge its wrongdoing.

 

A lot of claimants are finding their claims are initially being rejected out of hand - quite contrary to the FSA rulings. You need to be persistent if you truly believe your claim has merit.

[Hannay100]

Thank you.

 

I had assumed hopefully that their unrequested and unrequired earlier investigation/findings needn't be a blockage to the formal complaint now to follow.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Hannay100

[dx100uk]

its not your fault if you did not read the small print of the T&C's of the PPI

 

i take you HAVE checked it rules out people being self employed?

not all do

 

dx

[dx100uk]

and who are you claiming against.

 

dx

[Hannay100]

I take you HAVE checked it rules out people being self employed?

not all do

 

dx

 

That was exactly what I was wanting to be able to check by asking the general question here in the first place, as I have seen it said quite widely on forums and websites including the CAB's that self-employment is one of the main reasons for mis-selling, along with being retired for example.

 

I gather from your comment that that self-employment isn't necessarily an automatic fail. I will have to dig in to the T&C's to see what applies now that this might not be a certainty after all.

 

Thanks for the insight.

[Hannay100]

and who are you claiming against.

 

dx

 

Missed this ... Bank of Scotland. Is there perhaps anything known about their PPI policy conditions and/or any mis-selling record that might assist me in assessing my own claim now?

[dx100uk]

type in

 

bank of scotland PPI

 

in our search box grey toolbar up top right

 

being self employed is not a 100% guarantee

as said, SOME policies coverd this

 

now IF you WOULD have been able to claim, is another thing!!

 

dx