Payment Protection Insurance (PPI): How was it a real poor deal for the self-employed?

By Paula Peterson


Payment Protection Insurance, or 'PPI', is insurance intended to cover credit payments in the event of accident, sickness or unemployment. Because of this, it's also sometimes known as 'ASU cover'. PPI was sold by banks and lenders alongside a number of lending options, including loans, mortgages, credit cards and finance agreements. In most cases, the PPI was unsuitable for the customer and would not have been purchased were it not for the various mis-selling practices adopted by banks and lenders. Among the most common mis-selling practices included failing to explain whether the PPI was optional or implying it was compulsory and failing to discuss crucial aspects of the plan, such as the exclusions and limitations or the 'cooling-off' period.

Self-employment PPI was a particularly bad deal for self-employed persons, as it frequently only provided cover for those in employment. In other words, whereas the employee of a business would be covered if made redundant, a self-employed plumber, for instance, wouldn't be covered if ever the work "dried up" or contracts were lost. Even where self-employed people were not explicitly excluded from the policy, there would regularly be significant restrictions and limitations on when they could claim. In addition, two of the most frequent reasons behind making a 'sickness' claim were often excluded from PPI policies. These were associated with mental health issues and back problems. Therefore, a builder who had a slipped disc may not be permitted to claim. Similarly, those not able to work due to stress or depression would not be able to benefit from the cover. Sometimes, particular roles, such as taxi drivers, were explicitly excluded from the policy.

Other exclusions in relation to employment Often, even those in employment would find they are not able to make a claim under their PPI policy because of the exclusions within the small-print. As an example, policies usually excluded people working less than 16 hours per week, people on short term contracts and, occasionally, agency workers. Further, people who worked full-time, though for a number of different employers, may not have been covered. If you accept early retirement or voluntary redundancy you are unlikely to be allowed to claim and some policies exclude claims should you be dismissed for misconduct. Senior citizens and students, who are not in employment, would also clearly be excluded from the benefit of a PPI policy.

Mis-selling Banks and lenders were obliged to assess if the PPI policy was appropriate for your demands and needs. If you were self-employed, you were usually not asked about your employment status or you fell within one of several other exclusions, the policy wasn't suitable for you and it is probable that it was mis-sold.

Defence Your bank or lender is unlikely to have a defence to a claim for a PPI refund should you have been unemployed, self-employed, retired or a student at the time you purchased the protection. Although you will not be entitled to a refund if your lender manages to establish that you would probably have bought the PPI "but for" the mis-selling, this is probably unlikely to apply to such customers, who would surely not have bought the policy had they been made aware of the fact that they could be ineligible to claim under it. If your employment status fell into one of these categories at the time you purchased PPI, you may be eligible for a full refund, plus interest.




About the Author:



0 komentar:

Posting Komentar