Result!

[Edwards]

When we bought our house we were told we had to have ppi if we wanted the mortgage, non ppi no mortgage.
As the sole income was a teachers salary it was of no use due to the small print that we did not get to see until after we had signed.
So yes it was claimed back.

[thirdcrank]

When we bought our house we were told we had to have ppi if we wanted the mortgage, non ppi no mortgage.
As the sole income was a teachers salary it was of no use due to the small print that we did not get to see until after we had signed.
So yes it was claimed back.

With mortgages, it used to be the mortgage indemnity guarantee (MIG.) Since a mortgage is secured on property, payment protection is more important for the borrower (who doesn't want to lose their house) than the lender, who can generally repossess. The theory behind MIGs was that the insurance protected the lender against over-optimistic valuations but in reality, this was just a nice commission earner. It was competition among lenders which stopped this when banks entered the mortgage market and wrecked the cosy arrangement previously enjoyed by the building societies. It started the era of loans of 110% of think-of-a-number valuations, interest-only "liars'" mortgages and most building societies going belly-up.

When there's money involved, there are generally people ready to get their sticky fingers on it.

[old_windbag]

I don't think MIG's are viewed as PPI claims. I think there was a vigorous discussion on martin lewis's forum about it. I like many had no choice in taking the MIG, it was pay it or no mortgage( or save for another umpteen years for bigger deposit ). Even if the bank claimed on the MIG, the MIG provider would come after the payee of the MIG for their liability. I didn't have mortgage payment protection( about 10% of the mortgage payment extra ) as I felt the T's and C's were too restrictive for my circumstances. Oh and that was optional with my lender, it wasn't forced upon me to take it.

[thirdcrank]

I didn't intend to suggest that MIG and PPI were the same thing. MIGs never came in for much scrutiny because with house price inflation, few borrowers in those far-off days were in both negative equity and unemployed. A lot of reckless lending then contributed to negative equity just as competition among lenders had pushed them into dropping MIGs - it was a selling point with many lenders.

[Psamathe]

I have always thought of banks (and similar) or having effectively the same as taxation powers. They chose what they want to charge us/pay us. So if they have to pay out a few billion for some reason they just adjust their charges (increase rates/charges to borrowers and reduce rates for savers) to make up the difference. And any banks not having to pay out those few billions just go along and take the extra profit.

So all these PPI pay-outs are not coming from shareholder dividends but from higher charges to everybody else.

And the thing about PPI is the payouts are over a longer term. When a bank is hit by a fine it is a sudden payout which comes off this-year's figures so hits the profits that year but they make-up the amounts over the next few years gradually from us borrowers and savers. PPI payouts are spread over a longer time so as they pay-out PPI compensation, so they are also taking the increased profits from their customers, borrowers & savers.

So we are all paying for the PPI compensation (just as we are all paying for the LIBOR rate setting fines, etc.)

Ian

[al_yrpal]

Bankster explanation.... https://youtu.be/mzJmTCYmo9g

Al

[axel_knutt]

Now the banksters and their shareholders have got to pay

It's the customers who pay in the end, those who were careful subsidise those who weren't.

[thirdcrank]

... It's the customers who pay in the end, those who were careful subsidise those who weren't.

That's certainly the way it was with building societies: the smaller ones paid more generous rates and/or had more exotic mortgages, and whenever it went wrong, one of the bigger societies swallowed up the smaller one to prevent any rocking of the boat. The building society movement has almost disappeared up its own exhaust.

Most of this was predictable even to the simplest of outsiders. eg Some years ago, I saw something about the Scarborough Building Society launching (something to do with the seaside ) mortgages for buying holiday homes as an investment. Part of the deal was that the projected income from these holiday lets in sunny Scarborough would be accepted as normal income for calculating how much could be borrowed. That mutual organisation was sunk pretty much without trace - on dry land.

[JohnW]

Now the banksters and their shareholders have got to pay

It's the customers who pay in the end, those who were careful subsidise those who weren't.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Those who weren't 'careful' may only be the donkeys who followed the very attractive carrot DANGLED BY THE BANKERS' PUBLICISTS AND PERSUADERS - WE SEE ADVERTS ON TELEVISION ALL AND EVERY DAY - and they are victims whose weakness is to be unable to see that they are being victims. If the donkeys don't go for the carrot, the evil bankers et al will just make the carrot smell better and dangle it in a different way.

The conspiracy is to persuade the gullible that it's OK to have what they can't afford because the bankers (AKA loan sharks) can make it possible for them to have what they can't afford.

The bankers, loan sharks, money lenders et al love money, it's their raison d'etre - but there's a scriptural quote somewhere that says "The love of money is the root of all evil" - the twist is that the evil is not brought upon the evil ones, it's brought upon their victims. They have to keep their victims buying what they can't afford because that keeps their victims borrowing and in debt and debtors have to pay back a helluva lot more than they actually borrow.

We all have a choice to only have what we need, and most borrowing is due to the anxiety to have luxury items that we don't need.................and that's how the conspirators like it. They create hell on earth for a lot of people.

[Psamathe]

.....
The bankers, loan sharks, money lenders et al love money, it's their raison d'etre.....

And the thing is that everybody knows that yet some still seem(ed) quite prepared to believe some salesman they knew was driven by targets (and bonuses) and was working for the banks interests.

When we buy a house, do we accept the word of the Estate agent (salesperson) or do we get our own surveyor in to check things out. Do we believe the vendor or do we get our own lawyers/conveyancers in to protect our interests. In many areas of our lives we are cautions when agreeing to things, particularly where the other party is without doubt acting in their interests and not yours.

Ian

[JohnW]

.....
The bankers, loan sharks, money lenders et al love money, it's their raison d'etre.....

And the thing is that everybody knows that yet some still seem(ed) quite prepared to believe some salesman they knew was driven by targets (and bonuses) and was working for the banks interests.

When we buy a house, do we accept the word of the Estate agent (salesperson) or do we get our own surveyor in to check things out. Do we believe the vendor or do we get our own lawyers/conveyancers in to protect our interests. In many areas of our lives we are cautions when agreeing to things, particularly where the other party is without doubt acting in their interests and not yours.

Ian

If victims don't bite the salesperson's bait, the salesperson will change the bait. The predators have no ethics - no concept of right and wrong.

As to estate agents - I've come across them, and their surveyors, in my professional life - and no - I don't accept their word or their competence .

As for a house vendor - my own thinking is that's different - the vendor may be an ordinary person/family often trying to do their best and as vulnerable as the rest of us to making a mistake and getting things wrong.

Of course, they may also be the archetypal shceister!

[Psamathe]

.....
The bankers, loan sharks, money lenders et al love money, it's their raison d'etre.....

And the thing is that everybody knows that yet some still seem(ed) quite prepared to believe some salesman they knew was driven by targets (and bonuses) and was working for the banks interests.

When we buy a house, do we accept the word of the Estate agent (salesperson) or do we get our own surveyor in to check things out. Do we believe the vendor or do we get our own lawyers/conveyancers in to protect our interests. In many areas of our lives we are cautions when agreeing to things, particularly where the other party is without doubt acting in their interests and not yours.

Ian

If victims don't bite the salesperson's bait, the salesperson will change the bait. The predators have no ethics - no concept of right and wrong.
....

Which we all know so we don't take the salesman's advice but we read the small print before signing .... and if we don't can we really be surprised when it turns out to not be quite the deal we thought it was?

Ian

[axel_knutt]

We all have a choice to only have what we need, and most borrowing is due to the anxiety to have luxury items that we don't need.................and that's how the conspirators like it. They create hell on earth for a lot of people.

A consumer society is founded on status competition, that's not the bankers fault. It is (or ought to be) common knowledge that compound interest means that borrowers will be poorer, and savers richer, over the long run.

[Paulatic]

We all have a choice to only have what we need, and most borrowing is due to the anxiety to have luxury items that we don't need.................and that's how the conspirators like it. They create hell on earth for a lot of people.

A consumer society is founded on status competition, that's not the bankers fault. It is (or ought to be) common knowledge that compound interest means that borrowers will be poorer, and savers richer, over the long run.

Ah compound interest..the stuff we learnt at primary school back in the sixties. Mention it to a young person working in a bank now and they haven't a clue what it is.

[JohnW]

.................If victims don't bite the salesperson's bait, the salesperson will change the bait. The predators have no ethics - no concept of right and wrong.
....

Which we all know so we don't take the salesman's advice but we read the small print before signing .... and if we don't can we really be surprised when it turns out to not be quite the deal we thought it was?

Ian[/quote]

I do agree with what you say Ian, but we're not all alike and I can't bring myself to blame a victim for being a victim. These predatory conspirators are cunning and evil beyond your imagination and they have no excuse - I can feel pragmatic hatred for them but not for their victims.