Answers Grape Tree Wordsearch Summer...
Offers & Competitions1 min ago
Enough Already.....
15 Answers
http://
I cannot see how it's anyones fault if PPI premiums trigger charges, surely that's simply mismanagement by the account holder? At the time they'd agreed to the PPI and knew the premiums were to be deducted as such surely it is their own responsibility to manage their account.
I cannot see how it's anyones fault if PPI premiums trigger charges, surely that's simply mismanagement by the account holder? At the time they'd agreed to the PPI and knew the premiums were to be deducted as such surely it is their own responsibility to manage their account.
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
as one of those persuaded to take this out, i don't consider myself a fool, gullible, but this was pushed in such a way that i would be at risk if i didn't take out the extra insurance, the banks know full well that this shouldn't happen, they knew then, they know now, and not just the banks,
i got some money back, but not what i paid out.
i got some money back, but not what i paid out.
I share some of your puzzlement about the whole PPI thing, TTT, but I think the argument here is that as the PPI was missold the customer shouldn't have had it and therefore the consequential charges wouldn't have arisen if they hadn't taken out the policy- so further compensation is due.
I don't understand the case in the paper though. the article includes this bit:
"£5,800 of PPI compensation by the large credit card company MBNA. But MBNA's calculations did not include just over £600 in fees and charges Mr Pascoe incurred since taking out his card in 1997. According to the claims management company advising Mr Pascoe, had those fees been correctly included in the calculations, his compensation payout would have more than doubled - to more than £13,000."It's absolutely outrageous," Mr Pascoe told the BBC. "That's almost robbery, isn't it? They should be fined big time."
It isn't clear to me why £600 in charges would result in compensation increasing by £6500 (to £13000)
I don't understand the case in the paper though. the article includes this bit:
"£5,800 of PPI compensation by the large credit card company MBNA. But MBNA's calculations did not include just over £600 in fees and charges Mr Pascoe incurred since taking out his card in 1997. According to the claims management company advising Mr Pascoe, had those fees been correctly included in the calculations, his compensation payout would have more than doubled - to more than £13,000."It's absolutely outrageous," Mr Pascoe told the BBC. "That's almost robbery, isn't it? They should be fined big time."
It isn't clear to me why £600 in charges would result in compensation increasing by £6500 (to £13000)
I have been contacted three times by financial institutions from whom I have borrowed money.
In each case they were happy to confirm that where PPI had been offered, I had refused it, and if it had not been offered or explained, it was added to the account anyway.
I feel justified therefore in availing myself in their offer to compensate me and refund monies to which they were not entitled.
In each case they were happy to confirm that where PPI had been offered, I had refused it, and if it had not been offered or explained, it was added to the account anyway.
I feel justified therefore in availing myself in their offer to compensate me and refund monies to which they were not entitled.
Yes, ForF, I take your point but at the time they had to manage the transactions on their account, so if you know a PPI premium will be deducted each month then surely it's up to the account holder to manage that? No one had any idea that this whole mis selling fiasco was going to erupt so at the time people had to manage the situation how it was. In any case I cannot see how they arrived at the figures they have in the case highlighted.
// At the time they'd agreed to the PPI and knew the premiums were to be deducted as such surely it is their own responsibility to manage their account. //
I have a little sympathy with what you are saying, but disagree.
IF I was unable to cover another bill because the available money in my account was paying for something I should have been paying for, then I should have any charges incurred refunded. It does not matter that I agreed to pay the money. It was fraudulently taken from me and meant that money was unavailable to me to pay other liabilities.
I have a little sympathy with what you are saying, but disagree.
IF I was unable to cover another bill because the available money in my account was paying for something I should have been paying for, then I should have any charges incurred refunded. It does not matter that I agreed to pay the money. It was fraudulently taken from me and meant that money was unavailable to me to pay other liabilities.
3T
If I cleared out you bank account and you were uable to pay your mortgage, would that be your own fault?
The banks took money which they shouldn't which in some cases caused customers to incur additional costs. They may have mismanaged their accounts, but their ability to properly manage their accounts was hampered by money being plundered for often worthless insurance.
If I cleared out you bank account and you were uable to pay your mortgage, would that be your own fault?
The banks took money which they shouldn't which in some cases caused customers to incur additional costs. They may have mismanaged their accounts, but their ability to properly manage their accounts was hampered by money being plundered for often worthless insurance.
I agree totally TTT.
If an amount was agreed then that is what should be expected. The fact that later it was proved to be mis-selling is not a factor.
He signed for was told the repayments, it matters not what the repayments were divided up for at teh Bank end.
Once again we see people trying to blame others for their own incompetence.
If an amount was agreed then that is what should be expected. The fact that later it was proved to be mis-selling is not a factor.
He signed for was told the repayments, it matters not what the repayments were divided up for at teh Bank end.
Once again we see people trying to blame others for their own incompetence.
1 to 15 of 15
