PPI Mis-selling

Like many, my father in-law was mis-sold Personal Protection Insurance on a loan he took out with Barclays a few years ago. He has been through the claim process and has had a letter from Barclays basically saying 'we are very sorry, we'll pay back what we conned you out of and add a bit of interest. This is our final offer'.

The thing is, my Father in-law was self-employed when he was told he had to take out the PPI as a condition of the loan. This meant - by Barclays own admission - that the insurance would never have paid out had he tried to claim on it. He was knowingly sold a product not fit for purpose; they dress it up as 'mis-selling', but I can't see that it is anything other than blatant fraud.

I strongly feel that Barclay's should be made to pay an element of compensation for knowingly defrauding my Father in-law out of £700+. However, all advice I can find on the web seems to suggest that people affected by PPI 'mis-selling' should aim purely to get their money back, plus a bit of interest. Would my In-laws be wasting their time persuing extra compensation through the FSA Ombudsman?

Grateful for any opinions/similar experience.

I got £972 from my claim. No idea about the ombudsman though. Sorry.

Never fell for it ever. Mugs game.

Banks are bastards. FAct.

I work for HSBC's PPI complaints team. If you want any information, tips...etc drop me an email - lee-r89@hotmail.com

Top man. An insider, agent sits.

Thanks to all who took time to reply, especially saintsisthesouth for his offer of further help.

However, I have now had it confirmed that despite Barclay's clear fraud, the FSA guidelines say that all they are required to do is pay back what they stole plus a bit of interest. It seems that the powers that be are determined to give the banks an easy ride on this.

Might find the below interesting.

This is a guide from the Financial Ombudsman on their approach to awarding compensation for "distress, inconvenience or other non-financial loss" (which is where the "compensation" queried in the opening post would fit).

Also, for clarity, the FOS and FSA are seperate bodies so it would not be FSA guidelines that dictate the Ombudsmans approach.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/technical_notes/distress-and-inconvenience.htm

I don't understand what you want...you got the money back plus interest.

How much money do you want back?

I don't understand what you want...you got the money back plus interest.

 

How much money do you want back?

Believe me, I am no fan of the ‘compensation culture’; I see this as a moral issue.

If you bought a breakdown policy from the AA or Green Flag, and then 3 years later found out that if you had broken down on a rainy night in the middle of nowhere, they would’ve had no intention whatsoever of coming out to recover you, would you be happy just to get your monthly payments back, plus a little bit of interest (a proportion of which you could have earned anyway if they hadn’t taken your money under false pretences)? Personally I would be a bit cross at being ripped off and treated like a mug and would want some recompense for their fraud.

The scenario I describe in the original post is exactly the same principle, isn’t it?