Hi, another new thread from me!
My wife has had some recent limited success with a PPI claim form that she completed for two old loans with a payout of over £800 that was recently credited to her account however upon further review it would appear as though Barclay's have Upheld one complaint but chosen to Defend the other.
It is strange as both loans taken a year apart were structured identically (i.e front loaded ppi).
Barclay's give their reason for upholding one of the complaints as:-
"We have found that in this instance a regular premium PPI would have been better suited to your needs. This would have been paid in addition to your monthly loan repayments so you would not have paid interest, whereas single PPI was added as a lump sum to the overall value of the loan"
However they give 10 bullet points for the defended complaint including such responses as:-
1) Your Recollection of the Sale
2) Recordings or Transcripts of phone calls about the sale.
3) Told the PPI was optional.
Firstly, I am interested in the way that Barclay's have calculated the circa £800 refund as mid way through their calculations, they deduct circa £600 for "less the cost of equivalent PPI cover under a regular premium PPI policy".
And secondly, I am interested in any readers comments regarding their decision to Defend a complaint when Front Loaded PPI is involved as from my research on other threads on this website, it would appear as thought Front Loading is a cardinal sin by the banks.
Am I barking up the wrong tree with the above and/or should we be satisfied with the £800 payout?
Barclay's suggest that if my wife is unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, she should contact the FOS within 6 months of the date of the letter.
Just for clarity, the loans were from 2005 and 2006 with front loaded PPI amounts of £907.45 and £954.57 respectively. It is the 2006 complaint that has been upheld with the 2005 complaint being defended.
Thanks in advance for your feedback!
My wife has had some recent limited success with a PPI claim form that she completed for two old loans with a payout of over £800 that was recently credited to her account however upon further review it would appear as though Barclay's have Upheld one complaint but chosen to Defend the other.
It is strange as both loans taken a year apart were structured identically (i.e front loaded ppi).
Barclay's give their reason for upholding one of the complaints as:-
"We have found that in this instance a regular premium PPI would have been better suited to your needs. This would have been paid in addition to your monthly loan repayments so you would not have paid interest, whereas single PPI was added as a lump sum to the overall value of the loan"
However they give 10 bullet points for the defended complaint including such responses as:-
1) Your Recollection of the Sale
2) Recordings or Transcripts of phone calls about the sale.
3) Told the PPI was optional.
Firstly, I am interested in the way that Barclay's have calculated the circa £800 refund as mid way through their calculations, they deduct circa £600 for "less the cost of equivalent PPI cover under a regular premium PPI policy".
And secondly, I am interested in any readers comments regarding their decision to Defend a complaint when Front Loaded PPI is involved as from my research on other threads on this website, it would appear as thought Front Loading is a cardinal sin by the banks.
Am I barking up the wrong tree with the above and/or should we be satisfied with the £800 payout?
Barclay's suggest that if my wife is unhappy with the outcome of her complaint, she should contact the FOS within 6 months of the date of the letter.
Just for clarity, the loans were from 2005 and 2006 with front loaded PPI amounts of £907.45 and £954.57 respectively. It is the 2006 complaint that has been upheld with the 2005 complaint being defended.
Thanks in advance for your feedback!
Comment