Halifax PPI claim

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Personally, I wouldn't suggest telephone contact at all. It usually suits them, and not us, as they can deny anything that was said unless you record the convo - and in that case, you have to inform them that it is being recorded if you want to use it later.

Also - I wouldn't suggest that you consider the availability of alternative policies as one of your grounds for mis-selling, as this is their ground for applying the 'Alternative Redress,' which we are hoping to refute. I've attached a list of common reasons for considering a policy as mis-sold - have a look through it and see how many boxes you can genuinely tick.

If you can show them that their adoption of the Alternative Redress is clearly not possible in this case (under the FSA/FCA rules) - AND quote a whole raft of other reasons for mis-selling, then that might possibly swing it. Finally, I believe that the FOS now charge lenders a minimum of £800 for every PPI claim that is referred to them. This can increase drastically if the claim is referred to a senior Ombudsman - and the FOS will often also direct that the lender pays the claimant compensation if they have behaved unreasonably (usually in the region £500 - £2000, I think). So - hinting at the cost to them of taking the claim to the FOS might help.

I wouldn't mention it just yet, but I would think that - if you had a pre-existing medical condition that prevented you from claiming under their policy - then it seems very unlikely that any alternative policy would have paid out, either ! This means that in your case, there was no suitablealternative policy available for you - as you were clearly unable to make any more use of another PPI policy, than you were of theirs !!!

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Further to above - here's what I have gathered from the FSA/FCA rules.

The PPI Redress Handbook is contained within FSA Policy Statement PS 10/12 (issued Aug. 2010) at appendices 1 & 2.

As far as I am aware, this has been adopted by the current FCA, and is still the basis upon which the FOS makes its’ determinations.

Within PS 10/12, appendix 1 is the PPI Redress Handbook text, and Appendix 2 is a collection of worked examples.

The text is paragraphed and indexed under the heading “Disp. App. 3.”

Within the Handbook, Disp.App.3.5 states:

”Where a complaint is about the sale of a policy, the firm should, as part of its investigation of the complaint, determine whether any claim on that policy was rejected, and if so, whether the complainant may have reasonably expected that the claim would have been paid.

For example, the complainant may have reasonably expected that the claim would have been paid where the firm failed to disclose appropriately an exclusion or limitation later relied on by the insurer to reject the claim and it should have been clear to the firm that that exclusion or limitation was relevant to the complainant."

Disp.App.3.6.2 states:
"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm should presume that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought if the sale was substantially flawed, for example where the firm:(1) pressured the complainant into purchasing the payment protection contract; or
(2) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, that the policy was optional; or
(3) made the sale without the complainant's explicit agreement to purchase the policy; or
(4) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the significant exclusions and limitations, i.e. those that would tend to affect the decisions of customers generally to buy the policy; or
(5) did not, for an advised sale (including where the firm gave advice in a non-advised sales process) take reasonable care to ensure that the policy was suitable for the complainant's demands and needs taking into account all relevant factors, including level of cover, cost, and relevant exclusions, excesses, limitations and conditions; or
(6) did not take reasonable steps to ensure the complainant only bought a policy for which he was eligible to claim benefits; or
(7) found, while arranging the policy, that parts of the cover did not apply but did not disclose this to the customer, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading; or
(8) did not disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleading, the total (not just monthly) cost of the policyseparately from any other prices (or the basis for calculating it so that the complainant could verify it); or
(9) recommended a single premium payment protection contract without taking reasonable steps, where the policy did not have a pro-rata refund, to establish whether there was a prospect that the complainant would repay or refinance the loan before the end of the term; or
(10) provided misleading or inaccurate information about the policy to the complainant; or
(11) sold the complainant a policy where the total cost of the policy (including any interest paid on the premium) would exceed the benefits payable under the policy (other than benefits payable under life cover); or
(12) in a sale of a single premium payment protection contract, failed to disclose to the complainant, in good time before the sale was concluded, and in a way that was fair, clear and not misleadinga) that the premium would be added to the amount provided under the credit agreement, that interest would be payable on the premium and the amount of that interest; or
(b) (if applicable) that the term of the cover was shorter than the term of the credit agreement and the consequences of that mismatch; or
(c) (if applicable) that the complainant would not receive a pro-rata refund if the complainant were to repay or refinance the loan or otherwise cancel the single premium policy after the cooling-off period.



DISP App 3.6.3
01/12/2010

FCA

Relevant evidence might include the complainant's demands, needs and intentions at the time of the sale and any other relevant evidence, including any testimony by the complainant about his reasons at the time of the sale for purchasing the payment protection contract.


Where the firm concludes that the complainant may have reasonably expected that a rejected claim would have been paid (see DISP App 3.5) then1) if the value of the claim exceeds the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant only the value of the claim (and simple interest on it as appropriate); and
(2) if the value of the claim is less than the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant the value of that redress.

More to follow. And......brace !

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

As previously threatened...

3.7.6 is important here, I think.

From then on, it covers the 'Alternative Redress,' which may need some attention.

DISP App 3.7 Approach to redress

General approach to redress: all contract types

DISP App 3.7.1
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the firm concludes in accordance with DISP App 3.6 that the complainant would still have bought the payment protection contract he bought, no redress will be due to the complainant in respect of the identified breach or failing, subject to DISP App 3.7.6 E.

DISP App 3.7.2
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the firm concludes that the complainant would not have bought the payment protection contract he bought, and the firm is not using the alternative approach to redress (set out in DISP App 3.7.7 E to 3.7.15 E) or other appropriate redress (see DISP App 3.8), the firm should, as far as practicable, put the complainant in the position he would have been if he had not bought anypayment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.3
01/12/2010

FCA

In such cases the firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the total amount paid by the complainant in respect of the payment protection contract including historic interest where relevant (plus simple interest on that amount). If the complainant has received any rebate, for example if thecustomer cancelled a single premium payment protection contract before it ran full term and received a refund, the firm may deduct the value of this rebate from the amount otherwise payable to the complainant.

DISP App 3.7.4
01/12/2010

FCA

Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan1) for live policiesa) subject to DISP App 3.7.5 E, where there remains an outstanding loan balance, thefirm should, where possible, arrange for the loan to be restructured (without charge to the complainant but using any applicable cancellation value) with the effect ofi) removing amounts relating to the payment protection contract(including any interest and charges); and
(ii) ensuring the number and amounts of any future repayments (including any interest and charges) are the same as would have applied if the complainant had taken the loan without the payment protection contract; or

(b) where the firm is not able to arrange for the loan to be restructured (e.g. because the loan is provided by a separate firm), it should pay the complainant an amount equal to the difference between the actual loan balance and what the loan balance would have been if the payment protection contract (including any interest and charges) had not been added, deducting the current cancellation value. The firmshould offer to pay any charges incurred if the complainant uses this amount to reduce his loan balance; and

(2) for cancelled policies, the firm should pay the complainant the difference between the actual loan balance at the point of cancellation and what the loan balance would have been if no premium had been added (plus simple interest) minus any applicable cancellation value.


DISP App 3.7.5
01/12/2010

FCA

Where a claim was previously paid on the policy, the firm may deduct this from redress paid in accordance with DISP App 3.7.3 E. If the claim is higher than the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.3 E then the firm may also deduct the excess from the amount to be paid under DISP App 3.7.4 E.

DISP App 3.7.6
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the firm concludes that the complainant may have reasonably expected that a rejected claim would have been paid (see DISP App 3.5) then1) if the value of the claim exceeds the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant only the value of the claim (and simple interest on it as appropriate); and
(2) if the value of the claim is less than the amount of the redress otherwise payable to the complainant for a breach or failing identified in accordance with this appendix, the firm should pay to the complainant the value of that redress.


Alternative approach to redress: single premium policies

DISP App 3.7.7
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the only breach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume that instead of buying the single premium payment protection contract he bought, the complainant would have bought a regular premium payment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.8
01/12/2010

FCA

If a firm chooses to make this presumption, then it should do so fairly and for all relevant complainants in a relevant category of sale. It should not, for example, only use the approach for those complainants it views as being a lower underwriting risk or those complainants who have cancelled their policies.

DISP App 3.7.9
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract, the firm should offer redress that puts the complainant in the position he would have been if he had bought an alternative regular premium payment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.10
01/12/2010

FCA

The firm should pay to the complainant a sum equal to the amount in DISP App 3.7.3 E less the amount the complainant would have paid for the alternative regular premium payment protection contract.

DISP App 3.7.11
01/12/2010

FCA

The firm should consider whether it is appropriate to deduct the value of any paid claims from the redress.

DISP App 3.7.12
01/12/2010

FCA

Additionally, where a single premium was added to a loan, DISP App 3.7.4 E applies except that in respect of DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(a) the cancellation value should only be used if the complainant expressly wishes to cancel the policy.

DISP App 3.7.13
01/12/2010

FCA

The firm should, for the purposes of redressing the complaint, use the value of £9 per £100 of benefits payable as the monthly price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract. For example, if the monthly repayment amount in relation to the loan only is to be £200, the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract will be £18.

DISP App 3.7.14
01/12/2010

FCA

Where the firm presumes that the complainant would have purchased a regular premium payment protection contract and if the complainant expressly wishes it, the existing cover should continue until the end of the existing policy term. The complainant should pay the price of the alternative regular premium payment protection contract (at DISP App 3.7.13 E) and should be able to cancel at any time. This pricing does not apply where DISP App 3.7.4 E (1)(b) applies.

DISP App 3.7.15
06/04/2011

FCA

So that the complainant can make the decision on the continuation of cover from an informed position, the firm should1) offer to provide details of the existing payment protection contract;
(2) inform the complainant that he may be able to find similar cover more cheaply from another provider in the event that he chooses to cancel the policy and take an alternative but remind the complainant that if his circumstances (for example, his health or employment prospects) have changed since the original sale, he may not be eligible for cover under any new policy he buys;
(3) make the complainant aware of the changes to the cancellation arrangements if cover continues;
(4) explain how the future premium will be collected and the cost of the future cover; and
(5) refer the complainant to 1, www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk1 as a source of information about a range of alternative payment protection contracts.

[tonyw380]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Well I'm exhausted with all that already ! your a star bill with all that info....

I can fully understand the fsa rules and guidelines in my case, and see now how the redress using the alternative applies with PPI.

I think in my case though as you have stated 'no alternative policy would have been appropriate' as I had seen a GP several years prior to taking out the loan. I still stand by the fact that at no point during the point of sale for any of the loans was it made clear that full disclosure was required of medical history and no policy booklet was provided for any loan.


It is also interesting that the guidelines state:
Within the Handbook, Disp.App.3.5 states:

”Where a complaint is about the sale of a policy, the firm should, as part of its investigation of the complaint, determine whether any claim on that policy was rejected, and if so, whether the complainant may have reasonably expected that the claim would have been paid.

For example, the complainant may have reasonably expected that the claim would have been paid where the firm failed to disclose appropriately an exclusion or limitation later relied on by theinsurerto reject the claim and it should have been clear to the firm that that exclusion or limitation was relevant to the complainant."

In my case they have not investigated this at all, or taken into consideration that the alleged failure to payout based on what they advise was pre-existing illness was not relevant to the fact that I was unemployed at the time of claiming and this was my basis for claiming.

I will send another letter to the CEO again just to get on their nerves a bit i think now, if they think i am going to keep on they may back down quicker! or not we will see.

thanks Bill

tony

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Glad you found that stuff useful, Tony !!! It can seem like a bit of a trudge, but you'll probably be able to ignore a lot of those rules, and just focus on those that affect you. I wasn't sure if 3.5 applied or not, but it seemed likely - so quote it.

Yes, I agree - keep on at the CEO's office before resorting to the FOS. If you can wear them down into submission, you'll get a payout much sooner than via the FOS - of that I am sure !!!

[monkeymo]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hello everyone,

I am sorry to hijack this thread, I won't fill it up with my own case. I have read all of the posts and the advice given here and find it very similar to my own claim from Halifax for a PPI refund.

I hope you don't mind me asking just one question to make this case relevant to me: - If Tony had not made a claim on his PPI policy, would your advice and calculations be the same?

The reason for my question is that I have had an offer of £900 from Halifax for my PPI mis-selling claim. Having read their 16 page letter explaining their offer I also have been hit with "Alternative Redress" but I have a pre-existing medical condition which, I think, would exclude me from using the alternative "regular premium policy policy" which they have "concluded you(I) would have purchased".

Many thanks, and again apologies for hi-jacking this thread.

Mo

PS - best of luck with your continued claim Tony.

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi MonkeyMo, and welcome to you. Your question is relevant to this discussion, I reckon - and your courtesy is noted. Blimey - you got 16 pages from them - I think that holds the record !!!

I have been aware of the 'Alternative Redress' for some time, but it is only recently that I have seen it being offered - and I suspect that the lenders have eventually realised that this is a nifty way of reducing mis-sold PPI redress, where they cannot deny mis-selling. But I believe it relies on the lender being able to show that there was no other failure on their part during the PPI selling process, if we challenge them. If the lender has offered Alternative Redress, then they have admitted mis-selling the PPI - as opposed to a complete denial of mis-selling. But their attempt at reducing the redress relies on there being no other evidence of mis-selling, and they rely on the claimant not being able to produce any.

I do not have any experience yet of refuting Alternative Redress settlements, as it is only recently that I have seen these being offered - so my advice in that respect is still entirely theoretical. I usually advise claimants not to say "I didn't know that I could have bought PPI elsewhere," so that the lenders do not take this as an admission that they would have done so. But I do believe that this admission should only be used by lenders where there is no other evidence that mis-selling took place. Note the important little word "only" in DISP App 3.7.7 above:"Where the onlybreach or failing was within DISP App 3.6.2 E (9) and/or DISP App 3.6.2 E (12), and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the firm may presume..."

It is often quite difficult for claimants to produce evidence of mis-selling, and I think the lenders know this, as does the FOS. So - we are often left to try and show that, on the balance of probability - the PPI was mis-sold. Whilst the lender might try and use a claimant's admission that they might have bought PPI elsewhere against them - I think that the claimant can use the admission effectively made by an offer of Alternative redress that 'in-house' PPI was mis-sold by concealing the availability of other options, and therefore it is very probable that the lender also mis-sold the PPI by other means as well. Sorry - that is a long sentence - please re-read it a few times in order to get my meaning.

Basically, I'm saying that Alternative Redress is best avoided by us claimants if possible - but if it is used by the lender, we can perhaps still use it to our advantage. However - we will have to find as many other reasons of our own for considering that the PPI was mis-sold. There is a list of such reasons here somewhere - I'll try and find the link to it.

If a claim has previously been made upon the PPI policy itself, this in itself cannot be seen as an admission by the claimant that the PPI was not mis-sold. Further FSA/FCA rules cater for PPI redress claims where previous claims under the PPI policy have paid out benefits to the claimant. Quite simply, these benefits are deducted from the final PPI redress. So - whether or not such a claim under the PPI policy was successful - it does not in itself preclude the erstwhile policyholder from claiming that the policy was mis-sold.

So - if Tony had not made a claim under his PPI policy - I believe my advice would have been the same, as this has little or no bearing on the question of mis-selling. Sure - the lender may say this implies consent to the selling - but it was NOT informed consent, we aver.

With regard to calculations, the only effect that such a claim should have on them is where any claim(s) to benefits under the PPI policy resulted in any payment(s) of such benefits - in which case, these are simply deducted from the final offer of redress - as per the FSA/FCA rules. Having a pre-existing medical condition that would exclude you from many or all of the benefits under the PPI policy certainly seems to me like a prime reason for a mis-selling claim, if these exclusions were not adequately explained to you. To then suggest that you could have bought a similar PPI policy for less elsewhere is clearly ridiculous.

However - in order for this to be used to refute the Alternative Redress option, any pre-existing medical condition would need to have been declared fully. If not - then it may need to be shown that no attention was given to this aspect. The very fact that no attention was given to the existence of cheaper alternative policies (as has been effectively admitted by Halifax) is, IMHO, evidence of that.

I do not believe that any claim to any benefits under the PPI policy can be taken to imply that it was not mis-sold, and I consider that the FSA/FCA rules effectively confirm my belief. I also believe that any pre-existing medical condition which would exclude the claimant from the full benefits of PPI demonstrates that the Alternative Redress could not be applied. If such conditions were discussed at the point of sale, then evidence of this is required - if not, then mis-selling must surely have taken place, as this aspect should have been covered.

That's my unlearnéd take on this, MonkeyMo - I hope it has been of use !!!

[tonyw380]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hello everyone,

I am sorry to hijack this thread, I won't fill it up with my own case. I have read all of the posts and the advice given here and find it very similar to my own claim from Halifax for a PPI refund.

I hope you don't mind me asking just one question to make this case relevant to me: - If Tony had not made a claim on his PPI policy, would your advice and calculations be the same?

The reason for my question is that I have had an offer of £900 from Halifax for my PPI mis-selling claim. Having read their 16 page letter explaining their offer I also have been hit with "Alternative Redress" but I have a pre-existing medical condition which, I think, would exclude me from using the alternative "regular premium policy policy" which they have "concluded you(I) would have purchased".

Many thanks, and again apologies for hi-jacking this thread.

Mo

PS - best of luck with your continued claim Tony.

Hi Monkeymo and Bill

Just as a bit of a follow up to Bill's advice and an update I received a telephone call from the Halifax last week as my case has been escalated following my further e-mails to the MD. I again explained my concerns and the advisor told me they were now reviewing it again and would be in contact shortly.
I am not aware of when or how you took the loan/loans Mo but I remember I topped up my original loan 5 times over several years and explained that after probably the first couple the PPI was automatically included which I believe it was, an easy misselling tactic for them as if you had it before then an assumption was probably made that you would continue with it. Definately push down the line that you never received any PPI documentation, I cannot remember ever receiving a PPI booklet from the Halifax and don't believe these were handed out advising on declarations and information.
Secondly, in relation to your pre-existing illness, i am not sure what this was but I was not aware I actually had a pre-existing illness! I was 22-23 and had torn my cruciate playing ******** a couple of years before and seen a doctor about it who was to refer me to a hospital in due course for a repair. The advisor at Halifax did not ask me if I had seen a doctor about anything or how this could affect any payout on PPI. Again I stood by the statement 'Why would I pay Halifax £1000 + for a policy that effectively could/would not payout if I had known I had a pre-existing illness that would invalidate the policy'
At the end of the day they took money from people for an effective scam and in my case with the failed payout, blacklisting and subsequent defaults it proves it was. There was no effective PPI protection for anyone that had seen a doctor previously and this was not made clear at point of sale.
Good luck Mo and keep fighting them! Interesting to see the case with Lloyds last week where it has been admitted the call centre staff were told to just get rid of people in the first call by 'bullshitting' as much as possible! Can't believe these companies and I think the FSA needs to get more involved now on this!

Take care

tony

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Monkeymo and Bill

Just as a bit of a follow up to Bill's advice and an update I received a telephone call from the Halifax last week as my case has been escalated following my further e-mails to the MD. I again explained my concerns and the advisor told me they were now reviewing it again and would be in contact shortly.
"Looking good, Houston..."
I am not aware of when or how you took the loan/loans Mo but I remember I topped up my original loan 5 times over several years and explained that after probably the first couple the PPI was automatically included which I believe it was, an easy misselling tactic for them as if you had it before then an assumption was probably made that you would continue with it. Definately push down the line that you never received any PPI documentation, I cannot remember ever receiving a PPI booklet from the Halifax and don't believe these were handed out advising on declarations and information.
Indeed so, Tony - you have the measure of them, sir !
Secondly, in relation to your pre-existing illness, i am not sure what this was but I was not aware I actually had a pre-existing illness! I was 22-23 and had torn my cruciate playing ******** a couple of years before and seen a doctor about it who was to refer me to a hospital in due course for a repair. The advisor at Halifax did not ask me if I had seen a doctor about anything or how this could affect any payout on PPI. Again I stood by the statement 'Why would I pay Halifax £1000 + for a policy that effectively could/would not payout if I had known I had a pre-existing illness that would invalidate the policy'
If these pre-existing conditions are now so important, then they should have been considered properly back then, shouldn't they ?
At the end of the day they took money from people for an effective scam and in my case with the failed payout, blacklisting and subsequent defaults it proves it was. There was no effective PPI protection for anyone that had seen a doctor previously and this was not made clear at point of sale.
Agreed.
I'm also beginning to consider the question...if YOU (the PPI insurance proposer) did not disclose your FULL medical records, then WHO did ? This seems like a breach of the DPA at best.
Good luck Mo and keep fighting them! Interesting to see the case with Lloyds last week where it has been admitted the call centre staff were told to just get rid of people in the first call by 'bullshitting' as much as possible! Can't believe these companies and I think the FSA needs to get more involved now on this!
Yes, indeedy, Tony. I think this needs to be kicked around the ball-park as much as possible, as it is one of the few examples of the regulators actually making an effort at regulating, IMHO.
Take care

tony

....

[monkeymo]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Bill and Tony,

Thank you very much for your welcome and advice. My pre existing medical condition was known to me at the time and I would most certainly have declared it if the question was asked. I am glad that your think I have a valid claim for further compensation and I will continue to fight them.

Tony - like you I took out an initial loan and then refinanced it 5 times. The first 4 loans/re-financings had PPI, the last 2 didn't. But the offer of compensation included a payment for these as they were affected by the PPI added to the previous loans. I haven't yet replied to their offer, I now will and I will follow your lead and get in touch with the MD in an attempt to keep my case open.

Bill - I'll take a while longer to digest your thoughts... but thank you for them!

Mo

[tonyw380]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Bill and Di

Firstly,THANK YOU, and secondly RESULT.

It really has been a hard slog but with your help and advice and pushing the right buttons we have got there!

It took about 10-15 e-mails and phone calls to the operations team over the last 5 months but they have finally admitted that their redress policy should not apply to everyone and in my case, as a first, they are now amending an internal policy to accommodate this. They have only issued payments and are still awaiting sign off of the policy that could take another 2-3 months but the allowances are there now to allow for payments to customers that were in similar circumstances, that being where the policy would never have paid out.

They issued cheques to me for £3000 to cover the policy payments plus interest at the 8% and have provided a goodwill gesture of £200 to apologise for the delays. Needless to say I have accepted. So original offer, nothing, then £821 alternative redress, push the right buttons and with a little help from Legal Beagles Di and Bill £3200.

Thank you so much for your efforts and support and I hope this will help others fighting the cause! Now onto Chartered Trust may as well give it a try! nothing to lose!

Thanks Di and Bill your stars!

regards

tony

[Bill-K]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Well done, and many congrats, Tony !!!
It can seem like a long hard slog, and even an impossible task sometimes - but very often, just sheer dogged :beagle:determination is what is needed.

they have finally admitted that their redress policy should not apply to everyone and in my case, as a first, they are now amending an internal policy to accommodate this.

This has been an important claim for me, because it is the first one I have really had to look into the 'Alternative Redress' (AR) rules in any depth in order to refute it. It is very interesting to note that Halifax appear to have 'amended an internal policy' because of this.

I hope that the fact that Halifax have admitted this will become known to the other banks, and that they will only apply the AR where it is genuinely appropriate - and where they have properly applied the FSA/FCA rules.

May I ask you a favour, Tony ? Would you perhaps be able to ask Halifax for some details as to what internal policy/ies was/were amended - and in what way ? They may choose not to disclose this - but they may perhaps consider showing a little genuine goodwill to bank customers everywhere, and answer the question. It may also be worth asking if they intend to inform other lenders of this, and/or the FCA/FOS. It would be interesting to see their response, which could well help in ensuring that future PPI claimants are only offered the AR where it is genuinely appropriate to do so.

[JonP]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Tony,
I have been reading your thread with interest and this is a good outcome, well done. This is also an excellent reference for others.

I've been thinking a lot about what you said early in your post and am really struggling to understand how they found out about your prior torn cruciate when you were forced to claim under the policy on grounds of unemployment?

Did you have your repair work under the NHS or was it Private?
Did you sign any authorisation for them to access your medical records?

You might want to seek some more advice.....

[di30]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Bill and Di

Firstly,THANK YOU, and secondly RESULT.

It really has been a hard slog but with your help and advice and pushing the right buttons we have got there!

It took about 10-15 e-mails and phone calls to the operations team over the last 5 months but they have finally admitted that their redress policy should not apply to everyone and in my case, as a first, they are now amending an internal policy to accommodate this. They have only issued payments and are still awaiting sign off of the policy that could take another 2-3 months but the allowances are there now to allow for payments to customers that were in similar circumstances, that being where the policy would never have paid out.

They issued cheques to me for £3000 to cover the policy payments plus interest at the 8% and have provided a goodwill gesture of £200 to apologise for the delays. Needless to say I have accepted. So original offer, nothing, then £821 alternative redress, push the right buttons and with a little help from Legal Beagles Di and Bill £3200.

Thank you so much for your efforts and support and I hope this will help others fighting the cause! Now onto Chartered Trust may as well give it a try! nothing to lose!

Thanks Di and Bill your stars!

regards

tony

YAY well done Tony!!!

So happy for you, and well done on your great work too!!

It's our pleasure x
Congratulations to you!

[tonyw380]

Re: Halifax PPI claim

Hi Bill,Di and Jon

In answer to your questions Bill, I am still awaiting a letter from the Halifax addressing the situation. They advise that because it involved a policy change and has only just been signed off they are awaiting a standard letter to be put together to resolve this. I will scan the letter in when i actually get it for you but they say maybe a month a least. I've had the money so that's one good thing! The operations department did tell me that I was the first for them to challenge the redress with what actually happened to me but there have been several similar cases since mine. It is surprising to think that many cases have been dealt with that may have been similar over the last 2-3 years!

Jon, I had the operation on the NHS. If I remember back that far , when I asked to claim on the PPI I was sent a form which in order to claim i had to give permission to access my medical records. That just shows what a load of misselling went on! obviously anyone that had anything prior to taking out the loan which wasn't declared would invalidate the policy! I bet this went on with all the banks. Im going to chartered trust now as it was a similar scenario although after the halifax did that I never put in a claim to them in the first place although they never advised me i could claim either and no paperwork so definate misselling! I will let you all know! keep up the fight!

regards

tony