Who knows what’s been hidden
PPI… it feels like we’ve been talking about mis sold payment protection insurance forever. It’s on our TVs and radios, in our newspapers and inboxes, it’s even on our phones and in spite of this apparent saturation it’s still going on. Why? Because, despite all the time that has passed, lenders have still yet to repay its total worth. In fact they are continuing to look for ways at dodging this bullet. However solicitor Paul Cahill explains how we’re shooting in a straight line:
“PPI has re-hit the headlines over the past few months; from a BBC investigation discovering lenders may have underpaid clients to the Financial Conduct Authority ordering banks to reopen 2.5million claims which were wrongly rejected.
“It would seem that regardless of the severity of the slap on the wrist lenders are less than forthcoming with ways in which to rectify the situation. This therefore places the onus on the person claiming, or the company making the claim on their behalf, to fully scrutinise every opportunity lenders had for mis selling PPI and other products such as package bank accounts.
“With minimal input from you we are able to conduct a full review of your financial arrangements. This includes checking for mis sold package bank accounts as well as any overlooked or even hidden PPI in any loans or credit card arrangements.
“We’ll also be able to see if you’re due any refund of additional charges triggered by the premiums of mis sold PPI policies as revealed in a recent BBC investigation.“Our service is simple; just complete one form called a Letter of Authority for every bank account you’ve held since 2000. We will then be able to contact your lender and obtain details of your past loans and credit cards to where there is PPI.
“We are in full agreement that this has gone on for long enough so let’s put an end to it once and for all. We can help you recover all the compensation you are owed… you just need to give us the nod. If you don’t the banks just get away with it and what kind of deterrent is that for the future?”
Content correct at time of publication