Many firms guilty of mis-selling PPI, told or heavily implied to customers that in order to take out a line of credit they must purchase a PPI policy, which was not the case at all. The guilty brings a lot of problems related to the confusion of determining a right PPI policy that must be done.
The fact is that if it wasn’t made clear to the customer that PPI policies were optional or that it had a cooling off period, if they felt they were pushed or were made to believe the application could not continue without it, then that is a genuine PPI claim. Every PPI claim needs a cooling off period, giving any party to decide which better steps to do.
If customers bought PPI after January 14th 2005 and were told it was ‘strongly recommended’ or had the product sold under similar pretences, this counts as an ‘advised sale’. Unless a ‘Demands & Needs Statement’ was issued, setting out why a particular policy was recommended as suitable then there is grounds for complaints. Any complaint will notice any chosen particular policy that was established before. Every judge needs to noptice all processes relating the status of “advised sale”