PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

**natweststaffmember** · 5th May 2010, 05:48:AM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Originally posted by Redspike View Post

Hi all,
is there an expert out there that could give me an opinion on the content of my first letter for reclaiming PPI on 2 fixed loans

-----------------------------------------------------------------
My Name
My Street
My Town
My Post Code

Company Name
Company Street
Company Town
Company Post Code
Today’s Date
Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Account / Policy numbers: 123456789, 987654321

I have been looking at my agreements with you, reference above and have noted that I purchased Payment Protection Insurance from you on both agreements.
I am now of the belief that I was mis-sold this policy due to various issues.
I took out the first loan on or around 13th September 2002. The loan was for a total of £30,863.00 plus interest of £10,922.48, which included a Loanguard insurance premium of £5,863.00 plus interest. I have since found out that these agreements are optional and not compulsory, as we had been led to believe. It certainly wasn't made clear to us at the time. Referring to that document of 2002 I was shocked at some of the content. I list my objections and complaints as follows:

The maximum payout for disability was 5 years (60 months), the maximum payout for unemployment was 12 months. The loan term was for 84 months and we were led to believe that we were fully covered for the full term. This cover that was “advised” was clearly not suitable to give “full insurance cover” which, with naivety, we assumed. If I had become disabled for any reason within the first 2 years, I would not have been covered at the end of the term. Same for long term unemployment over 12 months.
Although the policy was in joint names I have now discovered that is was only me that was covered and not joint – my wife could not claim anything even though she was in gainful employment and contributed towards the loan payments.
We were not made aware that the policy was optional and that we could, if we wished, either not had insurance or we could have purchased other insurance of our choice. Although we believed the insurance to be very expensive we didn't think we had an option.

In the very least, if not legally but ethically, all these points should have been explained to us to give us a professional and unbiased appraisal as to the suitability of this policy and what our choices were.I would say point 1 should have been explained more clearly, ie that if you claimed for unemployment and/or only one of you were covered that you would have to deal with the repayments.
We paid this loan without problem until on or around 5th April 2007.It was then replaced by loan No 2. This was to pay off the existing loan and consolidate other items. This was for £19114.00, which was for a cash loan of £15000.00 and the dreaded insurance premium of £4,114.00 all plus interest. There was no reason for us doubt the Loanguard with this loan as we didn't believe any background circumstances had changed from the last loan. However:

The points 1, 2 and 3 from above I query on this loan as well, but additionally-
I believe that the insurance was “resold” with the new loan, for which I believe the trade term is “churned” - ie settle the existing policy and resell us a new PPI policy within the new loan. I don't think this is relevant because all you need to state is whether any discussion was had on the PPI policy or whether it was simply a "let's do it under the old terms".
At the time of taking this loan out I was then a Company Director, and to my knowledge an employee. However in the definitions of the policy I am classed as being self employed. The conditions for self employed people are even worse within the policy. When did you find out about this and what did you do to clarify this?(remember, you should cancel the PPI even if you are making a claim for misselling based on this).
THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD BE “CONSIDERED” (NOT GUARANTEED) A CLAIM WAS IF THE COMPANY WENT BANKRUPT.
Nobody asked me to reassess my status and advise of the differences in the small print, again whether legally obliged or ethically obliged, we trustingly signed the documents. So we are now even worse off than before with regard to “ protection”? Why would I possibly wish to take out an insurance policy for thousands of pounds with such miniscule returns and/or diminised chances of a claim? - it doesn't make sense.

We have been customers of RBS for over 15 years and we believe we have been sold down the river over that period.(the part in bold is irrelevant but perhaps you might use the words to the effect that you are extremely disappointed that your loyalty to the bank has not been reciprocated by their advice to you) I confirm that I want to cancel the PPI policy of the current loan with an amended repayment scheme to match the existing agreement or better, but without the PPI insurance.
They'll cancel the loan but the loan will be higher than the amount on your 2007 agreement, I think you need to be specific and ask for all payments from the 2002 agreement related to PPI plus interest. Furthermore that the current loan should reflect an amount without PPI and should be the remaining amount had you paid the loan without PPI(I hope that part makes sense).
What I expect from you is justification that the policy was suitable for me based on my circumstances and an explanation as to how your suitability criteria works. If you cannot justify this to my satisfaction I request a full refund of all premiums paid to date as well as interest on these payments.
They don't need to do it because you have said above that it was unsuitable due to who it covered.
As I believe I have been deprived of this money I also expect an interest element to be added to each sum, at a suitable rate and using a suitable calculation method, as a compensatory gesture.

In respect of cancellation of a policy may I draw your attention to the following reports from the FSA, namely, 'The sale of payment protection insurance - results of thematic work, November 2005' & 'The Sale of Payment Protection Insurance - results of follow-up thematic work, October 2006'' that state "When consumers cancel the PPI without repaying the loan, some firms will need to reissue the loan without the PPI. Firms should ensure they treat their customers fairly in relation to the terms on which they reissue the loan.". This means that any new loan is on the same or better terms and does not detriment me in any way and that this is to be done without making a new search on my credit file

I expect a swift response to this letter within 14 days, containing either your full justification or notice that you will be refunding these payments.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response I will issue another letter notifying you of my intention to take further action if the matter is not resolved within a further 14 days. After this limit has passed I will be either contacting the Financial Ombudsman to investigate my complaint or issuing court proceedings.
They have 8 weeks to respond before you can go to the FOS so if you are going to threaten to go to court then you will have to follow through with court action cos it is unlikely to take 4 weeks.
Yours faithfully,

Signature
thanks to all
regards,

Redspike

See above...........

**Redspike** · 5th May 2010, 07:21:AM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Many thanks for the reply - Is there a reasonable chance of success in your opinion?

The bit about me being classed as self employed I have only just discovered that this week, along with only me being "insured" and not my wife, looking through the site and looking at my loanguard policy. I thought, as I have stated , that I was an employee. I am in the building trade and self employed means a sole trader.

After showing my wife this thread (she knew I was on the case but hadn't commented), she sorted the loan in 2002 and has just revealed that she was told that the PPI was compulsory in order to get the loan, which makes it even worse.

With regard to self employment it does state that self employed are covered. However being a director ( and in their eyes self employed) the company would have to go bust before they would even consider a claim - no guarantee whatsoever of any unemployment payout.

**natweststaffmember** · 5th May 2010, 12:39:PM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

I thought you had a case when I read the letter, I think you need to slightly tweak a few things and then hit them with it.
I am assuming the words "fully protected" were used.

**WendyB** · 5th May 2010, 12:42:PM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Tbh I don't see how being a director can be classed as self employed. You are employed by a company on a PAYE basis. The legal entity that employs you is the Ltd company, not yourself. But best to check the legalities on this..

**Redspike** · 5th May 2010, 15:35:PM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Hi,

Rewritten letter for your comment . Thankyou
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

Re: Account / Policy numbers: 123456789, 987654321

I have been looking at my agreements with you, reference above and have noted that I purchased Payment Protection Insurance from you on both agreements.
I am now of the belief that I was mis-sold these policies due to various issues.

We took out the first loan on or around 13th September 2002 in joint names. The loan was for a total of £30,863.00 plus interest of £10,922.48, which included a Loanguard insurance premium of £5,863.00 plus interest. My wife did all the dealings and was told at the time that we had to have the insurance to qualify for the loan but that we would be fully covered for Accident ,Death and unemployment. The loan would be paid via the insurance policy if any of these events occurred to us during its term.
I have since found out that these agreements are and were optional and not compulsory, as we had been led to believe. Referring to that document of 2002 I was shocked at some of the content. I list my objections and complaints as follows:

The maximum payout for disability was 5 years (60 months), the maximum payout for unemployment was 12 months. The loan term was for 84 months and we were led to believe that we were fully covered for the full term. This cover was clearly not suitable falling very short of “full cover”. If I had become disabled for any reason within the first 2 years, I would not have been covered at the end of the term.
Same for long term unemployment – maximum of 12 month claim. Can you advise me what I would have done if any of those events had occurred and surpassed the “time out” period?
Although the loan was in joint names I have now discovered that is was only me that was covered and not joint – my wife could not claim anything even though she was in gainful employment and contributed towards the loan paymentsb and was named on the agreement.
We were not made aware that the policy was optional (in fact the contrary occurred) nor the consequences of the important key points of the policy. We were quite clearly misled. We didn't check the paperwork – we just signed the dotted line, as trusting as we were. You were a good well known brand high street bank and we had been with you several years by then.

In the very least, if not legally but ethically, all these points should have been explained to us to give us a professional and unbiased appraisal as to the suitability of this policy and what our options and choices were.

We paid this loan without problem until on or around 5th April 2007.It was then replaced by loan No 2. This was to pay off the existing loan and consolidate other items. This was for £19114.00, which was for a cash loan of £15000.00 and the dreaded insurance premium of £4,114.00 all plus interest. There was no reason for us to doubt the Loanguard with this loan as we didn't believe any background circumstances had changed from the last loan. However:

The points 1, 2, 3 and 4 from above I query on this loan as well, but additionally-

Again we received the loan offer complete with the PPI documents, no explanation and no guidance other than the documents received in the post.
At the time of taking this loan out I was then and still am now a Company Director and engineer – engineer being my profession which is what I would have put on the application form, and to my knowledge in the real world an employee. I had no reason to question that definition. However I have since read in the definitions of the policy that I am classed as being self employed. The conditions for self employed people are even worse within the policy. I have only just discovered this after recently going through the document in depth. This should be one of the key points considered by the seller. Unfortunately its only words to your salesman but the possible outcomes of these policies could be crucial to my way of life.

THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD BE “CONSIDERED” (NOT GUARANTEED) AN UNEMPLOYMENT CLAIM WAS IF THE COMPANY WENT BANKRUPT.

Nobody asked me to reassess my status and advise of the differences in the small print, again whether legally obliged or ethically obliged. We trustingly signed the documents thinking it was compulsory – why would we think any different? So we are now even worse off than before with regard to “ protection”? Why would I possibly wish to take out an insurance policy for thousands of pounds with such miniscule returns and/or diminished chances of a claim? - it doesn't make sense.

We have been customers of RBS for over 15 years - we are extremely disappointed that our loyalty to the bank has not been reciprocated by you with regard to honest and truthful advice. It appears to have cost us many thousands of pounds for little more than a worthless policy.

Taking all the above into consideration I require all payments from the 2002 agreement related to PPI plus interest returning to me. Furthermore the current loan should reflect an amount without PPI and should be the remaining amount had we paid the loan without PPI. I will not accept any less.

As I believe I have been deprived of this money I also expect an interest element to be added to each sum, at a suitable rate and using a suitable calculation method, as a compensatory gesture.

In respect of cancellation of a policy may I draw your attention to the following reports from the FSA, namely, 'The sale of payment protection insurance - results of thematic work, November 2005' & 'The Sale of Payment Protection Insurance - results of follow-up thematic work, October 2006'' that state "When consumers cancel the PPI without repaying the loan, some firms will need to reissue the loan without the PPI. Firms should ensure they treat their customers fairly in relation to the terms on which they reissue the loan.". This means that any new loan is on the same or better terms and does not detriment me in any way and that this is to be done without making a new search on my credit file

I expect a swift response to this letter within 14 days, containing either your full justification or notice that you will be refunding these payments.

If I do not receive a satisfactory response I will issue another letter notifying you of my intention to take further action if the matter is not resolved within a further 14 days. After this limit has passed I will contact the Financial Ombudsman to investigate my complaint. I have all the necessary proof in my possession.

Yours faithfully,
-

**Redspike** · 8th May 2010, 13:22:PM

Re: PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Is this OK to send? This is to MBNA for their telephone calls. Many Thanks.

Dear Sirs,

Account Number:

After several courteous requests to your credit controllers to stop contacting me by telephone and trying to explain to them that I have been dealing directly with you in writing only, the calls still persist, via your inhumane auto-diallers. Please take this letter as confirmation that I will no longer be discussing any financial business with you over the telephone. I now require all contact to be made in writing only.

I have been legal and lawful, professional and courteous in my recent dealings with you and I would accept no less than reciprocation from a purportedly professional business such as MBNA. I understand your motives behind the calls and I will not remain on the receiving end of a barrage of unnecessary and irrelevant contact. I am not in a position to tell your Credit Controllers any more than I have already stated in writing. I have serious issues and queries regarding the alleged account and until I am satisfied with your conduct and validity of the different aspects of the account, then this status will continue.

May I remind you that the alleged account remains in default until my queries are discharged, and I refer you to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and its content, for which I am sure I don't need to quote the relevant sections to you. I also refer you to my letter of 22nd April 2010 putting the account into dispute. I will reaffirm that the conditions within that correspondence will remain until I receive satisfactory answers.
To date I have not received a reply to that letter.

If your organisation decides to deviate from the terms of that correspondence then I will react in the most appropriate way.

I also have further queries on the account with reference to charges and Personal Protection Insurance, for which correspondence has been sent – all by Recorded Delivery. I am monitoring delivery and am aware when your organisation receives each piece of correspondence.

As I am sure you are also aware, Harassment of Debtors is a criminal offence in England and Wales under Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

Furthermore, continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003.

In addition every individual has a right to be free from harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The offence of causing harassment is arrestable under the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and attracts the powers associated with such offences. Additionally Section 3 enables a person who is, or may become, the victim of behaviour prohibited by Section 1 to take civil proceedings against the perpetrator.

Further it is my contention that your company is in breach of the Office of Fair Trading guidelines on harassment.

If I should receive another telephone call from any person from your company at any point then I will be contacting the police to report the criminal offence of harassment and will be naming you in my statement to the police.

I trust that I have made myself clear and that all future correspondence with your company will be in writing, therefore kindly remove my home telephone and work telephone numbers from your system at once.

Yours faithfully,

PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

PPI 1st letter to RBS 0 Opinion of suitability

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Announcement

Court Claim ?