Banks ask for PPI claim deadline

Yes, well said PDB11, If a deadline on claiming for mis-sold PPI means that all of us will now stop getting unsolicited phone calls, e-mails, text messages, etc, from all and sundry at all times of the day and night, weekends, especially, offering their highly expensive services for something that we can all do for ourselves, that's been going on for over 3 years, then I'm all for it as well, bring it on.....

If a deadline on claiming for mis-sold PPI means that I will eventually stop getting unsolicited phone calls from people or robots (I'm not sure which I dislike more) offering to claim for mis-sold PPI that I have never had, then I'm all for it. I still remember the conversation I had with a call centre girl from American Express, shortly after I took out my card. She was determined to sell me PPI. I told her I didn't need it, because I paid off the balance every month. She tried to persuade me that in that case I wouldn't pay for PPI, because it was charged as a percentage of monthly balance; and if my balance was zero, the premium would be zero. [B]That[/B] was mis-selling, since paying off the balance in full is not the same as having a balance of zero, as she implied, and I told her so. In that case, it was not simply "read the small print" - she actually gave me misleading information to me to try and get me to buy, not about the terms of the contract, but about how they would apply to my situation. Fine, if like me or Crispvs you understand what you're about, but most people unfortunately don't. Some years before that, I did buy PPI. I'd just taken out a mortgage to buy my first house, and my job was at risk (loads of job losses when they privatised the electricity industry). So I actually went and got some PPI from London and Edinburgh. Much to my amazement last year - I had long since paid off my mortgage and cancelled the policy - I got a letter saying they had been going over their books, and they found that they had failed to reduce my premium when I made capital repayments to the mortgage. Six hundred pounds of refunded premiums, and nearly five hundred of interest, that I had no idea I was owed. I was well impressed! Oh, and @Grobbendonk, fraud is not the same as theft. If the bank tells you "this policy will be to your benefit", and you buy it, and it isn't, they haven't actually stolen anything. You have bought something you didn't need. It's up to you to prove that the bank used undue persuasion to sell it to you. On the other hand If they tell you "It is a condition of contract that you also take out this policy", and it isn't, it still isn't theft; but some or all of the contract is certainly voidable. Once again, this is not a "read the small print" matter. The bank have to tell you the terms - that's what small print is for! - but saying something to your face is part of this. If they say something is a condition of the contract, and then give you a contract to sign where it is not a condition, they are liable. But it's still not theft.

I get very tired of people going on about PPI. Around nine years ago I took out a loan from my bank. I was offered the contract to sign and although the bank employee obviously expected me to sign it right there and then, I insisted in reading it fully first, which is what anyone taking out one of what the banks refer to as a 'product' should have done. The staff member had mentioned PPI while we had been discussing the loan and I made sure I read the full conditions regarding the PPI, which were right there in black and white in the contract. I evaluated the conditions for myself and decided that I could live with them. I was not under any obligation to take out my loan from that particular bank - I could have arranged a loan from any of the banks at the time, but the contract seemed fair, as long as I did not break its conditions, which were not excessive considering I was asking them to lend me a substantial amount of money. Anyone reading Motley Fool (now Lovemoney) at the time would have been well aware of the potential dangers of PPI, as well as the possible options, as was I. I entered into the loan contract in full knowledge and it was not mis-sold. Perhaps the author of this article would be good enough to provide link back to one of the many articles Motlay Fool published on this at the time. Fast forward a few years and every second ambulance chasing firm has decided to go after mis-sold PPI in addition to their stock in trade of compensation for people who didn't look where they were going. Now virtually everyone is beset with e-mails and telephone calls offering to reclaim mis-sold PPI for them. Some people I have spoken to on the telephone have been very insistent and most refuse to accept that I might not have been mis-sold PPI. They claim to have been fully trained in the matter and feel they speak with authority. They do not! They cannot have read every contract that was signed and so they cannot claim the expertise they do. Undoubtedly some people WERE mis-sold PPI, but plenty more signed contracts which spelled out the conditions in black and white, which means that those people were NOT mis-sold PPI. Whatever happened to the principle of caveat emptor? If you sign a contract you are bound by its conditions. If you sign something you haven't bothered to read properly then you have only yourself to blame and have no business trying to claim back something you signed a contract to pay. QED! If you don't know if you paid PPI or not, get out all of the contracts you have signed with banks over the last ten years and check for yourself. If you have not bothered to keep such important documents then that is hardly the bank's fault. These things should be kept carefully so that they can be consulted if necessary. They are not just a formality which can be dispensed with at the earliest opportunity. It is true that that banks did mis-sell PPI but not in all cases, and the current mania for claiming is being actively stoked by the usual suspects in order to take a cut from any compensation payments. Remember - none of these firms would be ring you up if they were not hoping to make money for themselves out of you. It is in their pecuniary interests to make you think you are owed compensation, whether that is really true or not. Meanwhile, as the banks find themselves being pushed into a corner over the issue and having to pay out huge amounts of compensation, they have gone back to some of their other old tricks such as huge overdraft fees to make up their losses. So if you are concerned about the amount you get charged when you go over your overdraft limit (as some have little choice but to do, before anyone calls down from their ivory tower with some insultingly trite riposte), then look no further for the reason than the flood of claims for PPI compensation. As for Lovemoney, instead of posting an article about claiming for mis-sold PPI, they should instead be linking back to any one of their articles of a few years ago and saying 'We told you so!' http://www.lovemoney.com/news/credit-cards-current-accounts-and-loans/loans/1234/payment-protection-insurance--just-say-no