Barclays Payment Protection Insurance (PPI)

Banking, loans and mortgages have been under the spotlight over the last decade or so, due to the Payment Protection Insurance scandal. You’ve all seen the adverts, in-fact if you haven’t then you’ve done remarkably well to avoid it.

The PPI scandal is the highest profile scandal to ever hit the UK finance sector, and we’ve compiled the following page to inspect everything PPI and arm anyone who may have been mis-sold with the knowledge they need to reclaim money that was wrongfully charged by Barclays for PPI.

What Is PPI?

To fully grasp PPI, it’s important to start with the basics. Payment Protection Insurance was an optional add on that covered repayments on finance, these include:

• Barclays Loans
• Barclays Mortgages
• Barclays Credit Cards

The insurance was initially created to cover holders of these policies if they were unable to meet their monthly repayments due to:

• Sickness
• Injury
• Redundancy

However, like most things that began with a noble intention it was abused and Barclays have paid out over £1.6 billion and may have to pay a further £3.2 billion to borrowers who were mis-sold PPI by Barclays.

Have I Been Mis-Sold PPI by Barclays?

Barclays were one of many big lenders that were complicit in mis-selling and therefore have been forced to set billions aside to pay back to customers what is rightfully owed to them through mis-selling.

Source: FT Graphic

Selling PPI dates back to the 1970’s and these policies were mis-sold over time in a variety of different ways on a variety of products including credit cards, loans and mortgages. It didn’t take long for Barclays to cotton on to how profitable these policies were, over the years thereafter millions of policies were sold to people that did not want or need them and to some that didn’t even qualify, thus leaving the customer unable to use what they were paying for.

Why is it Important to Act Quickly?

The Financial Conduct Authority has implemented a PPI 'claim by' deadline of 29th August 2019. The big five banks have paid out £24bn in compensation so far and have set aside a further £32.6bn to deal with the estimated claims that will come forward during that time. It’s therefore essential to check if you were either knowingly or unknowingly mis-sold PPI at any time with a simple, no obligation, free check before it’s too late!

The Origins of Barclays

Barclays has an illustrious history that traces back almost 300 years, when John Freame and Thomas Gould started up as Goldsmith Bankers. In 1736, following Freame’s retirement, his nephew James Barclays took the reins. Barclays, Bevan, Tritton & Co. joined 19 other banking businesses in 1896 to form Barclay & Company Limited, a more familiar name.

In 1966, Barclays launched Barclaycard, starting a trend that made money more accessible than ever before. Barclaycard got going in Northampton, where a small team of under 10 converted a shoe factory into Barclaycard HQ.

The evolution of the debit card continued in 2007 when Barclays launched the UK’s first contactless card, an idea which has gone on to be used for 1.1billion payments totalling over £9bn.

How Did PPI Come to the Public Conscious?

Payment Protection Insurance first came to light in the late nineties, when Which? Magazine called into question the eligibility of the product for certain people and the excessive expense. Despite knowing that their products were under scrutiny the banks and lenders continued to peddle products to unsuspecting customers until the Financial Services Authority released a report in 2005 on PPI and the poor practices that were being used to sell policies.

In 2006 smaller lenders were starting to find their PPI practices were coming under increased pressure and some found themselves slapped with large fines that reached into the millions.

A year later in 2007, the major financial establishments that thought they would be able to continue to fleece customers and get off scot-free were starting to feel the pressure of the FSA investigation.

Research in 2008 suggested that over 2 million people in the UK had been paying for PPI policies that they had no chance of being able to claim on. A further 1.3 million people were believed to have been sold the insurance on the provision that that was the only way they could be approved for a line of credit – which is of course false.

How Were Customers Mis-Sold by Barclays?

Although PPI itself is a useful tool to have in your armoury, in many cases it was added onto a customer’s policy without their knowledge or consent. This meant that many customers were paying for a policy due to the hidden fees in their monthly charges all along. Sales Advisors would often pressure their customers into buying policies. Banks instructed their staff to use whatever method necessary to get the job done. In return they’d be given hefty commission payments.

If customers weren’t given the full brief about their loan and sales staff went on to encourage and push them to take out PPI, then this could be classed as mis-selling. Salesmen would ask open ended questions making it hard for people to just refuse the policy outright.

What Did Barclays Do When the Scandal Was Uncovered?

For too long PPI was unregulated, and Barclays were earning millions from mis-sold policies. Once the governing bodies began to investigate PPI, they found massive discrepancies in the way that PPI was being sold and who it being was sold to, this meant that the banks were forced to pay back what they took from customers.

Barclays made contact with those they believed were mis-sold and told them they could be due a refund. People were then able to make contact with Barclays and hand over details of the sale – including paperwork and account numbers. In response Barclays dedicated a portion of their website exclusively to PPI, this allowed customers to find out all the information they needed to eventually get their refund processed.

‘I’d Like to Make a Claim Against Barclays’

In order to claim what you believe is rightfully yours, you must be prepared to hand over as much evidence as physically possible about the policy in question. Barclays will need the following information to process any claim quickly and efficiently:

• Any PPI account policy numbers.
• Details of the key dates of the policy.
• Information about how the policy was sold.
• Employment status at the time the policy was sold.
• Details of any savings or other insurances you had when you took out the policy.
• What you took out the finance for and the amount you paid off.

Let’s say that you send over your information and all the evidence you have to hand and you’re rejected, don’t give up. If you feel strongly that you were mis-sold and have evidence to substantiate the claim, then you have every right to contact the Financial Ombudsman. Depending on when the policy was taken out, you may not have all the paper work available, but don’t fret, there’s other ways you can get your refund.

At PPI.co.uk We’re Here to Help

PPI.co.uk has been helping customers fight the banks to get what is owed to them for years and during this time we’ve built a name for ourselves as not only one of the leading brands in the field, but also as a knowledgeable service that helps our customers to get the refund that they deserve.

We’ve noticed over the years that no two PPI case are the same, and some, the older ones especially, can be very tough to achieve results on. However, it’s the difficult cases that have helped build our name, our experience means that we can use it to our advantage when navigating difficult cases.

Our standing in the industry has meant that we’ve been able to broker a deal with the major banks and lenders, which means that we’re not required to submit anything more than a name, date of birth and an address; doing away with the complicated account numbers and reams of paperwork. Once we’ve sent this to Barclays they can then start to process the information and correlate it with their database.

This agreement is unique in that it is available to only the best companies in the industry.

Start your claim today CLICK HERE!

PPI Scam-How It All Unfolded

PPI policies have been sold in the UK since the early nineties along with loans, credit cards and mortgages. The whole point of this insurance policy was to give you protection by covering your loan or mortgage repayments in the event you were unable to do so because of:

• Illness
• Accidents
• Unemployment
• Death

But banks soon realised that PPI was highly profitable for them, which is when they began using aggressive sale tactics to sell it to customers. Soon, the complaints began to pile up one by one. As the chorus of complaints began to rise continually through the noughties, it was also found that banks were returning merely 15% of their entire PPI income to the claimants. This made PPI the most lucrative insurance product for banks across the UK, even more so than house insurance or life insurance. Barclays and Lloyds were both chief culprits of PPI hard sell tactics, which was also why they both recorded huge profits from the sale of PPI policies.

An investigation conducted by the Citizens Bureau followed, which labeled PPI as a ‘protection racket’. The report submitted by this investigation ratcheted up the pressure on banks as well as other financial firms indulging on an almost industrial scale mis-selling of PPI policies. Some of the notable conclusions of this investigation include:

• PPI policies were very expensive as premiums often added 20% to the overall cost of the loan or mortgage taken out by the customer. In some worse case scenarios the overall loan amount was inflated by a staggering 50% because of PPI premiums.
• PPI policies were largely ineffective as they contained so many restrictions or exceptions within their terms and conditions that the chances of legitimate payout were slim to almost non-existent.
• PPI policies were widely mis-sold in most scenarios to customers who had no clue of PPI being added or forged into their loan or mortgage agreement without their knowledge. In some instances PPI were told to be essential for customers (which they were not) and sometimes they were sold to customers who had no chance of claiming from it (for example, self employed people), which means that such customers ended up spending a fortune on worthless cover.
• The claims process for PPI policies were highly inefficient as customers were forced to deal with complicated claims procedures or lengthy delays in their claims process.

The FSA (Financial Services Authority), which was the predecessor of the FCA, cited cleaning up PPI as one its primary responsibilities when it took over the responsibility of regulating the general insurance. Industry. By the end of 2005, the FSA notified the heads of major banks in the UK about the issue.

By the start of 2006 the FSA began levying fines to banks or financial firms still indulging in PPI mis-selling. The first to be fined was the Regency Mortgage Corporation, who were handed a £56,000 penalty for PPI mis-selling. The FSA concluded that the Regency Mortgage Corporation sold PPI to its "right-to-buy" mortgage customers, which meant that these customers were paying premiums for worthless cover, as they would be ineligible to claim from the PPI policy they had purchased.

Consequently many more banks were punished with fines by the FSA. In 2008, the FSA fined Liverpool Victoria Banking Services £860,000 for including PPI along with the loan or mortgage agreement of many customers without their knowledge or consent. Alliance & Leicester was fined £7m by the FSA as it was found that their staff had been trained to use pressure tactics on customers who enquired about the inclusion of PPI into their loan or mortgage agreements.

The ‘single premium’ PPI was one of the worst types of PPI sold at the time. This type of PPI was sold to mortgage buyers and it was included in their loan right at the start, which increased the overall loan amount and interest paid significantly. But, by 2009 the FSA banned the sale of single premium policies.

The scandal reached whole new proportions when Which? reported that 33% of PPI customers were sold worthless insurance. Even though it was common knowledge by then that many customers were mis-sold PPI policies, the scale of mis-selling that was still being done amazed everybody. Salespeople were either pressurised or incentivised to sell PPI to customers who were not eligible to claim from it. A sting conducted by undercover journalists working for the Times showed that salespeople at Lloyds banking group sometimes forged the PPI agreement along with the loan or mortgage agreement of a customer.

The Battle for Compensation

Armed with new evidence an army of customers began to claim compensation from banks and other financial institutions that were responsible for mis-selling PPI to them. There are many grounds through which a successful claim for PPI compensation can be made. In some instances you were given compensation if you could prove that you were unemployed at the time of taking out the policy (making you ineligible for it), while sometimes successful claims were built on immaculate paperwork. If you were able to prove that you would not have claimed on part or all of the policy, you would have a great chance of being successful with your claim for compensation. Many of our successful claims have been due to this. Customers were guaranteed protection from repayments if they become unemployed, but their employment status was not taken into consideration when PPI was sold to them. Many banks began unfairly rejecting claims left, right and center in the hope of dissuading customers from proceeding further with the claim. But undeterred customers took up their complaint with FOS (Financial Ombudsman Service). The FOS on further investigation overturned almost 75% of the PPI claims rejected by banks.

The FSA also initiated a new regime for PPI sales in 2011, which stated that:

• PPI policy could not be sold to a customer until seven days after the loan or mortgage agreement was agreed.
• All customers eligible for PPI must be given a personalised quote that details all the costs involved and cover provided.
• Customers had to be instructed in writing that PPI was an optional add-on policy and not compulsory.
• PPI salespeople had to inform customers about the number of people who were able to successfully claim on their insurance policies.

At the time the banking industry felt that the changes imposed were unfair and as a result took up the issue in court. But they experienced a stunning and landmark defeat at the high court that ruled in favour of the changes suggested by the FSA being implemented. This led to thousands of previously rejected PPI claims being opened and banks were also forced to go through their past PPI sales to find customers who deserved to be compensated for the mis-sold PPI. The BBA was contemplating appealing against the high court ruling, but many banks decided to withdraw from the case and simply start reimbursing customers for mis-sold PPI.

Of the estimated 3 million people who were eligible for PPI refunds (worth a total of £4.5bn), Lloyds banking group were found to be responsible for almost a third of the market.

Why Was PPI So Widely Mis-Sold?

If you have just tuned in to the PPI hoopla you might probably be thinking that PPI was always a scam.

But PPI is not a scam, at least it was not meant to be one initially. In fact it might even be a useful product in certain scenarios. The problem arises because it was mis-sold to a great extent to customers who:

• Were unaware that PPI was added to their loan agreement
• Were ineligible as per the terms of the policy to claim from it
• Did not want PPI with their loan or mortgage agreement

Here we list three of the biggest reasons why PPI was always considered an inherently flawed product:

PPI Was Very Expensive

A study conducted by the investment bank Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), and the OFT, which was reported in the 'UK banks: PPI – Time for change' piece stated that the cost of PPI products were excessive. Also, the claims ratio for PPI products were found to be a mere 20%, which means that for every pound you paid in PPI premium, you can claim back just twenty pence.

This figure is considerably lower than any other type of insurance product available in the market. For example the claims ratio for household insurance comes to about 55% while the claims ratio for motor insurance is 74%. For an industry that is used to dealing with narrow profit margins, the high margins offered by PPI was very appealing.

The risk of buying an expensive PPI policy is further heightened by the fact that it is usually a secondary transaction and customers don’t usually shop around to find the right deal. An inquiry conducted by the Competition Commission’s inquiry into store cards gave further voice to this view and it was also found that the lack of competition or pressure meant that lenders did not have to alter the pricing of PPI policies that were sold along with store cards.

PPI Offers Only Partial Protection

PPI policies in principle were supposed to provide you with cover for your loan, mortgage, credit card or store card repayments in the event you were unable to do because of certain circumstances. The reality though was far different from this. The fact is the ‘protection’ that PPI polices were supposed to be offering to you was only partial. Many policies included unreasonable exclusions of cover for even some of the common causes of credit default.

PPI insurers rejected around one in six claims from customers. Studies conducted since have shed further light on why there was such a high rate of rejection for PPI policies. The FSA discovered that many PPI policies were sold without informing the customers about all the exclusions as well as benefits included in the policy.

In fact at the time, firms selling PPI policies were not required to disclose all such information verbally when conducting face-to-face sales. One instance of PPI mis-selling was so ludicrous, as it involved a PPI policy including an age exception of 65 years old being sold to a 68 year old man! This means that not only was the man ineligible to claim from that policy if the need arose, but as he was retired at the time of taking out the policy, most of the benefits of PPI were not applicable to him. But, at the time such levels of excessive mis-selling was common as PPI was a high earner for every seller.

Basically the exclusions mentioned in the terms and conditions of a PPI policy were much wider than most customers anticipated. People who were already suffering from a chronic illness or a mental health problem were unable to claim from their PPI policy, if they were unable to make repayments due to the occurrence of those ‘pre-existing conditions’. The Citizen’s Bureau also found through their investigation that in many instances customers were unable to claim from their PPI policy because of many unreasonable demands of producing medical evidence.

PPI Was Sold With The Use Of Many Unfair And High Pressure Sales Tactics

The FSA survey did not state that all firms employed underhand tactics to sell more PPI policies. But, a staggering 67% of firms involved in selling PPI policies were found to be indulging in some kind of mis-selling, which posed an increased danger towards customer protection

For example, a loan company paid their staff a £20 bonus for each PPI sale. The overall bonus scheme was structured in a way that led to their salaries being doubled if certain expectations were met. Sales staff that failed in meeting their PPI targets not only received no bonuses, butwere also earmarked as having a need for further training.

Another example of poor practice and mis-selling emerged from the script used by sales staff to sell PPI polices for a particular loan company. The script stated “we do not offer advice but will provide you with information on accident, sickness, unemployment and life cover”, but a little further on the script reads “if the client is unsure then you can tell them that we strongly recommend that you consider taking out PPI".

Along with these main issues, the FSA survey also noted that the claims process employed by many firms was slow and unfair. This led to customers missing out on cover they were rightfully owed as per the terms of the PPI policy they had taken out, forcing them to take serious debt reinforcement action.

Why Has A PPI Deadline Been Enforced?

To Ensure That People Don’t Waste Any More Time In Bringing Claims Forward

Perhaps the biggest reason why a deadline has been enforced by the city watchdog is to ensure that people who have not yet taken the requisite action begin to come forward with their claims. Therefore, a line can be drawn under this whole saga. Of course some experts believe that some people with legitimate claims of PPI refund might miss out on compensation money they are owed because of the proposed deadline. But, the FCA intends to implement a two-year awareness campaign that should inform most people about the chance to claim for compensation and the need to press forward with the claim.

Allowing The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) To Focus On Other Objectives

Any claimant who is unhappy with how their claim was handled by their bank or lender has the option of taking up a complaint with the FOS. Since banks reject a large number of claims, the workload of the independent arbiter is primarily focused around resolving PPI claims. In March 2016, the FOS received their one-and-a-half millionth complaint relating to PPI. A vast majority of these complaints can be attributed to the unhappiness felt by the customers on how their PPI claims were dealt with. Till date the FOS has overturned 66% of the PPI complaints it has received from people. The FOS has done some quality work in tacking a lot of the ‘bad behaviour’ of financial firms, which probably did not get the media exposure it deserves. Once this whole PPI episode is over, they can go back to continuing their good work.

What Happens Now That The PPI Deadline Has Been Announced?

If you were mis-sold a PPI policy, you will now have to bring forward your claim before 29th August 2019. The FOS won’t consider any complaints made after this cut off date.

Complaints made prior to the deadline will be allowed to run its course irrespective of whether it crosses the deadline cut off while the claim process is ongoing.

Certain exceptions exist to this 29th August 2019 cut off and they include:

• A claim might be considered post the deadline if the claimant bought the new PPI policy after this deadline. In such a scenario the deadline does not apply.
• A claim can be made by a person who has a live PPI policy or has bought one at a future date and is unable to claim from that policy. For example, if a person has bought a PPI policy and loses his/her job after that and his/her claim has been rejected by the insurer. If that person is not happy with the result of their claim, they can start a complaint with the FOS as the deadline wont apply for them

Vulnerable Customers Will Be Offered Extra Support

The FCA has announced its intention of putting in place ‘enhanced support arrangements’ for vulnerable PPI claimants. These customers can now directly contact the FCA via a new helpline. However, it is important to note that the PPI deadline will also apply to this customer group.

A significant proportion of people who are yet to make their claims or who are due refunds consist of vulnerable PPI customers, so this additional support should come as a welcome boost to them.

These customers might also be offered extra face to face consultation if the helpline staff at the FCA feel that such type of assistance is necessary for them.

Been Rejected Before? Check if The Plevin Ruling Gives You Grounds TO Start a New Claim

On the heels of the landmark Plevin ruling made by the Supreme Court, the FCA has decided to put in place regulations that guide financial firms on how to handle the new wave of claims that are likely to result because of the ruling.

Plevin Vs. Paragon Personal Finance

This case revolved around the application and interpretation of section 140A if the Consumer Credit Act. This act enables the court to reopen a credit agreement, if it is determined that an unfair relationship exists between the lender and debtor due to anything not done or done, by or on behalf of the creditor. Lets understand the facts of the case.

Mrs. PLevin had applied for a PPI policy and subsequently received one that was arranged by her broker. But unbeknownst to her both the lender 'Paragon' (Paragon Personal Finance Limited) and broker received an undisclosed commission as part of arranging the policy. Knowing this Mrs.Plevin argued in court that the relationship between herself and her lender was unfair due to the following reasons:

• The commissions received by Paragon finance and her broker was not disclosed to her
• Both the broker and the lender failed to carry out the required assessment in determining whether a PPI policy was suitable for her requirements

Therefore, Mrs. Pleven’s contention for filing the claim was that her broker acted on behalf of Paragon Finance and not in her best interests when arranging the PPI policy for her.

It is mandatory for a broker to carry out a needs assessment before arranging a PPI policy as per the ICOB rules and the failure to do so led the Court of Appeal to determine that the relationship between the broker and the lender was unfair to Mrs. Plevin.

The Supreme court on the other hand:

Disagreed with the contention made by the Court Of Appeal that the failure of the broker to carry out the required needs assessment was due to any wrongdoing by or on behalf of Paragon Finance, but at the same time, held that the relationship was unfair because of the failure on part of both the broker and the lender to disclose the commissions received by each of them, under the terms of section 140A of the CCA 1974(Consumer Credit Act

Based on this, the Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling for the Plevin Vs Paragon case. As a result of this ruling the FCA announced that if the total costs involved in buying a PPI policy was greater than 50% of the total commissions paid and if the customer was not made aware of this, it constituted mis-selling, which means that customer was due back the difference amount along with the associated back interest. The FCA has instructed firms to write to previously rejected claimants who are now eligible for reclaim under the Plevin ruling and inform them of the same.

How To Know If You Were Mis-Sold PPI?

PPI is an insurance policy designed to cover your repayments on any nominated form of borrowing in the event you are unable to do so because of illness or due to redundancy. This means that it was sold alongside a number of financial products. The first step you should take is check if you have had PPI attached to a loan or any other type of financial product. Different financial products alongside which PPI might have been mis-sold to you include:

• Credit cards
• Personal loans
• Mortgages
• Mortgages
• Dealership car finance
• Store cards
• Catalogue credit
• Monthly-paid insurance
• Overdraft

How Far Back Should You Go?

To give yourself the best chance of success with respect to your PPI claim, its best to raise a complaint within six years of paying the premiums of the policy and within 3 years of realising that it was mis-sold to you. While you can raise a complaint at any point in time, doing so within the above mentioned timeframe will boost your chances of success with your claim. Lets consider the following scenarios:

The PPI Policy Expired More Than Six Years Ago

If its been more than six years since you were mis-sold the PPI policy, your lender is no longer required to maintain any paperwork pertaining to your PPI policy. This means that not only will you be required to make the claim yourself, you will also have to provide all the evidence required to prove your claim.

It Has Been More Than Three Years Since You Realised That PPI Was Mis-Sold To You

The Financial Ombudsman cannot adjudicate on claims where the claimant has known about the mis-selling of PPI for more than three years. You can still complain, but if rejected you can’t make a complaint with the FOS.

Therefore, it would be advisable to check for financial products you have taken out within that timeframe and verify if you have had PPI attached to them or not.

Types Of PPI Policies

Sometimes you might not find the word PPI added on to your loan or mortgage agreement, but it is still possible that you were mis-sold PPI. How? Simple, PPI could have been hiding in your agreement under the following disguises:

• Credit Protection insurance
• Credit insurance
• Loan repayment insurance
• ASU
• Protection plan
• Payment cover
• Retail payment protection
• Loan care

The easiest way of finding out whether or not you have had PPI is by checking your credit reports. CallCredit, Equifax and Experian will list every single debt you had within the last six years in their credit report. You can get a free trial or get your complete credit report for a one time £2 payment.

You can also make a list of known offenders of PPI policies and check if the firm you borrowed from lies on that list. Prioritise loans or credit cards taken from those institutions than others. It makes sense to file for a claim against these repeat offenders because you know that many before you have done it successfully.

You can also contact your lender (via phone or written application) and ask them whether you had taken PPI and if you were mis-sold. However, if they are not able to confirm it, you will need to pore through your documents and check it yourself.

How Do You Check PPI For Financial Products You Do Not Have Any Records For?

If you check with the lender and were informed that you did not take out PPI, one way you can confirm this is by asking your lender who underwrote their PPI policies (the company responsible for determining your insurance) and then contact the lender directly and check with the underwriter if you had ever held a policy with them. Even if you don’t have the documents for PPI that you could possibly have paid for on other financial products, you can still make a claim for compensation.The lender will maintain all your documents (if you had PPI with them) for six years after the expiration of the product and you can request copies of them as per the Freedom of Information Act. You can also go down this route if you are unsure about taking out PPI with a particular financial product. You will have to make your request for copies in writing and it might also include a £10 administration charge, but since you stand to gain significantly more via a successful claim, it is worth doing.

What Happens If You Know The Lender, And Are Suspicious Of Having Been Mis-Sold But Don’t Have Any Documents?

Don’t worry; even if you have thrown away your paperwork, there is still one way through which you can gain access. In such a situation it’s best to contact your lender directly and ask for copies of your original agreement. Ensure that the terms and conditions mentioned in the copies are same as those mentioned when you took out the policy, as terms can change over time.

Based on whether your account is open or closed, you can determine how you can go about asking your lender for copies of the requisite documents. If your account is open, you can request your lender to provide the documents. Some lenders can ask for a £1 to provide the requisite copies, so it might be best to enclose a £1 cheque to speed up the entire process.

If your account is now closed, you can request for a more detailed breakdown, which includes details specifically relating to your insurance policy. If you were not provided copies within 40 days of making the initial request, you can report it to the Information Commissioner. This information can cost you £10, so enclose a £10 cheque to speed the process up a bit.

Why You Should Let Us Handle Your PPI Claim?

As a claims management company we are in a great position to offer you services as well as guidance to help you with compensation claims, restitution claims and repayment claims. Here are some of the responsibilities that we can handle on your behalf:

• Determining whether or not you have been mis-sold PPI in the first place
• Registering the notice of claim on your behalf which leads to a separate file being opened for you
• Determining the amount of compensation you are owed as part of your reclaim
• Ensuring that you are paid the entire compensation amount by the lender
• Fraud prevention measures

Perhaps the most significant aspect of making a claim is finding out whether or not you have had PPI unfairly attached to a loan or mortgage agreement (or across multiple loans). Finding this out can be time consuming not to mention intensely frustrating. Guess what? We can take this entire headache out of your hands and deal with every aspect of it. The first step involves contacting your lender and finding out whether you have had PPI in the past. Once we are able to confirm this with your lender, we will send over the remaining documents for you to sign to get the claim process started.

We work on a policy of No Win No Fee, so you don’t have to make payments upfront to get us to handle your claim. You will only have to pay a pre-agreed amount of your winnings once we are successful with your claim.

Yes, it is probably best if you get your claim started yourself, but the reality is financial firms don’t really want to pay you the compensation amount and therefore will look to employ stalling tactics just to make the process more exhausting and time consuming thereby dissuading you from carrying on further with it. Moreover, there have been many instances where even a legitimate claim for PPI has been rejected by a bank due to the belief that many claimants lose hope and don’t pursue the remaining claims process, once the initial claim is rejected. Now that you have us working on your behalf, you don’t have to bother yourself with such stalling tactics or exhaustive procedures to claim the PPI compensation amount you are rightfully owed.

Even if your claim has been rejected we will guide you on the follow up steps you need to take to claim PPI successfully. Also, it is important to keep in mind that some of biggest compensations handed out so far have been to claims brought forward by Claims Management Companies.

Now, that the PPI deadline has been announced it might be easier for you to let us deal with your PPI claim because:

Deadline Announcement Is Going To Lead To a Avalanche Of Complaints

Now that the FCA has made the deadline for PPI complaints official, expect there to be a mad rush with regards to the number of complaints that will be made. The clock is ticking and everybody is going to come forward with his or her claim for compensation. The number of people claiming for mis-sold PPI is only going to increase once the FCA is going to start the awareness campaign it has promised during the deadline announcement. This will lead to a greater backlog of complaints and further delay for you to get back the compensation you are owed. By choosing us you leave the entire ordeal up to us, safe with the knowledge that our resources and expertise will be put to complete use to ensure that your claim is processed correctly and that the correct compensation amount is returned to you.

Not Having To Deal With Stalling Tactics Employed By Banks For PPI Claims

Even if you have an iron clad case for PPI refund, there is a strong likelihood that your claim might be rejected. Studies have shown that nearly one in three claims rejected by banks have been subsequently upturned by the FOS. Why were such a large number of claims rejected by banks? Simple really, to stall and frustrate people so that they lose heart and don’t continue with their claim further.

The FOS released figures, which show that the customer’s complaints are still not being dealt with fairly by banks despite fines being issued. The Financial Ombudsman is still overturning a large number of rejected claims in favour of the claimant and against banks or financial institutions.

Critic’s say that the banking industry has further compounded their problems by employing stalling tactics to dissuade people from continuing with their claims. Past figures have shown Lloyds bank to be the biggest culprit of this tactic as an alarming 78% of PPI claims rejected by the bank were subsequently upturned by the FOS.

Our Latest PPI Posts