News0 min ago
How Much Is Eral Compo And How Much Is Lining The Pockets Of Lawyers
15 Answers
http://
I find it hard to see how this could be 'mis sold' to such a tune. Unless the public is massively thick (I always just said no as I was self employed) and the majority of the public took it out (very doubtful) why is it so high(and this is just one Bank)
How much of this is ending up in the pockets of low-life lawyers? If the proliferation of adverts is anything to go by, that is most of it.
Meaning in this case the taxpayer will end up funding pond life ambulance chasing scum.
I find it hard to see how this could be 'mis sold' to such a tune. Unless the public is massively thick (I always just said no as I was self employed) and the majority of the public took it out (very doubtful) why is it so high(and this is just one Bank)
How much of this is ending up in the pockets of low-life lawyers? If the proliferation of adverts is anything to go by, that is most of it.
Meaning in this case the taxpayer will end up funding pond life ambulance chasing scum.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The lawyers simply take a cut of the payout. They don't ladd to the overall cost to the financial services companies who are paying the compensation.
I too am a little puzzled too about how so many people could have paid out for PPI without realising they didn't have it/need it, but the regulator has decided there was missellling so that's the end of the matter
I too am a little puzzled too about how so many people could have paid out for PPI without realising they didn't have it/need it, but the regulator has decided there was missellling so that's the end of the matter
the public, me being one are not thick, however what the banks did wasn't just mis-selling but in my eyes fraud, they should be held to account, many people had been talked into having like Barclays additions to their accounts, most of which were useless, as some have found out, like insurance, so the added cost of your current account, may well have cost the customer without their knowledge, not discussed with the customer at all, as one chap discussed on a news report, think it was watchdog last week. He was completely unaware of the bank having taken money from his account over a five year or more period for what they termed extras on his main account, it was only after thorough checking that he discovered just how much they had taken over that period. One could say he should have been more vigilant, but the fact remains that the bank should have spelled it out clearly in writing what his charges were for the account, they didn't, and he eventually got his money back, a small fortune for him, running into thousands of pounds
I was miss sold ppi on my mortgage. It was my first mortgage and they said I needed insurance to cover payments if ever I was unemployed. So I duly paid £10 a month for 15 years. Fortunately I never had to claim be I was self employed and the insurance would have been invalid. They knew my employment status from my mortgage application, so they should never have sold it to me
I do not consider myself thick. I was lied to and believed them. The banks stole vast amounts of money from millions of people.
Has anyone ever been prosecuted? Been convicted? Gone to prison? Fined?- No.
If someone steals £200 by claiming benefit they are not entitled to, then they are sent to jail. Yet if your banks steals £200 off you, they get off scot free.
I do not consider myself thick. I was lied to and believed them. The banks stole vast amounts of money from millions of people.
Has anyone ever been prosecuted? Been convicted? Gone to prison? Fined?- No.
If someone steals £200 by claiming benefit they are not entitled to, then they are sent to jail. Yet if your banks steals £200 off you, they get off scot free.
I took out loans and was told the PPI was compulsory or the loan would be refused. I now know this was b*llocks but I did not argue at the time.
I reclaimed the PPI my self very easy, just one letter to write and the loan company have to do all the rest. I got over £4000 back so if I had used a claim company they would have grabbed £1300 of it.
I reclaimed the PPI my self very easy, just one letter to write and the loan company have to do all the rest. I got over £4000 back so if I had used a claim company they would have grabbed £1300 of it.
//wide-boy banker mates// dont have any, never worked in retail banking.
I was offered ppi many times. but I read the information. It was always quite clear to me so I refused it. Never had any problems refusing it although some were pushy admitted
My beef is not with people being re compensated, nor with the banks paying a penalty. But when has a penalty (in billions) been payable to lawyers? That I do have an issue with, plus I am sick of ambulance chasing adverts.
I was offered ppi many times. but I read the information. It was always quite clear to me so I refused it. Never had any problems refusing it although some were pushy admitted
My beef is not with people being re compensated, nor with the banks paying a penalty. But when has a penalty (in billions) been payable to lawyers? That I do have an issue with, plus I am sick of ambulance chasing adverts.
Ordinarily bazile, you have six years from discovering the debt , twelve years if its a debt secured on property, to claim. I say from discovering because it may be that you didn't know you had incurred it but for the dishonesty of the creditor. That's how HMRC operate; six years but as long as they like when they have been deceived by the taxpayer. Here, it could be argued that you were notionally aware of the debt but the money was being obtained by fraud and it is not right that a fraudster should benefit from his own deception.
you can reclaim missold ppi without recourse to lawyers but if you do they they get paid, same as everyone else. We were told on our first mortgage, many years ago that we had to have life insurance to cover the mortgage and that we had to have the bank's product, at the time we knew no better and really wanted the mortgage sorted.
I kind of agree about caveat emptor but just like every other retailer, banks should be honest with their customers, and if they aren't then they should be punished and the customer should get a refund. Its not actually compo, but a refund of what was paid plus interest.
I kind of agree about caveat emptor but just like every other retailer, banks should be honest with their customers, and if they aren't then they should be punished and the customer should get a refund. Its not actually compo, but a refund of what was paid plus interest.
I too agree with caveat emptor, but there was such small print in some persuasions, and in one instance OH was told he couldn't have the credit if he didn't take PPI - we were persuaded that it was the responsible thing to do to have the cover. The bills can run into thousands if you have a large credit limit and spend it, or a large mortgage, or have had the PPI cover for many years. I can see how it soon tots up. Thankfully for us, everyone has paid up except for TESCO/RBS - they said I knew what I was doing (which I can still argue) when I took out the cover, and the Ombudsman has thrown that one out. Not sure if there is any higher recourse than that - if anyone knows, I'd be pleased to hear!
1 to 15 of 15
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.