| Banks, Claiming PPI Compensation, Claims Management Companies, PPI Refund, PPI Scandal

Because PPI was mis-sold by the UK’s most trusted financial institutions, millions of people were affected as they lost billions of pounds. The impact of this financial disaster is so far-reaching that its effects are still being felt today as more and more mis-sold customers are filing for refund. 

The PPI scandal has affected the banking industry heavily along with a large portion of the public. But there are certain areas where women in particular have suffered from the scam.  


Divorced Women Being Affected By The Scandal 

Thanks to a loophole in a Payment Protection Insurance clause that was later put in place by commercial banks and card companies, divorced women have reportedly been deprived of their PPI compensation after they have separated from their husbands.  

A report published by YourMoney claims that divorced women are missing out on a total of £3.4 billion worth of PPI refund every year due to a clause loophole.  

The loophole here was that when a married couple decided to jointly purchase a financial product, the product would be issued to the both of them. However, they might not have had equal rights. The couple would have decided amongst themselves who was the legally first-named and second-named partner.  

This also applied to the PPI policy sold along with financial products. Here, if the first-named partner needed to make a claim, their other half would not be informed about it. Also, in case of a divorce, all compensation would go to the first-named partner. 

In the majority of these cases, husbands have usually been listed as first-named partners, depriving their wives of the refund in case of separation. Though the biased distribution of compensation has been made invalid by most of the commercial banks, certain institutions have continued refunding only the ex-husbands. 


Major Banks Involved In The Bias 

NatWest and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) are two banks that have caused huge damage when it comes to depriving divorced women from their compensation. Their combined provision to repay mis-sold customers amounted to more than £4.7 billion in 2016.  

A PPI claims expert, Mike Begg, made a statement saying that while ex-husbands have been successful in claiming refunds for mis-sold PPI policies, their ex-wives have received absolutely nothing.  

Mis-selling of PPI has been going on since 1995. As divorce rates increase, there are thousands of women that are yet to be paid their compensation because of this loophole.  


The Case Of Nicky Adamson With NatWest 

39-year old Nicky Adamson had taken out four loans from NatWest amounting to £24,000 along with her former partner. The loan repayments were made jointly by the couple for seven years, until they separated in 2005. After separation, Nicky admits to paying the final £2,800 herself, clearing the loan debt.  

In 2012, when the wave against mis-selling was at its peak, Nicky discovered that she was mis-sold the policy. She hired a solicitor to file her complaint against NatWest. The bank agreed to pay back the compensation, but all she received was £202. On the other hand, the solicitor charged a fee of £1,700. 

Matters got worse when she realised that her ex-husband was paid £5,800 in compensation. On being asked about the issues and to give more details about their clauses, the bank refused to give any information saying that they couldn’t talk about the issue due to data protection.  


RBS And The Infamous Great-grandmother’s Signature Forging 

Jean Mackay, a retired school teacher from Morray, Forres, was the victim in a dramatic case of financial malpractice. RBS employees forged her signatures on credit card policy papers which then implied that she had voluntarily applied for PPI.  

In 2008, Jean approached RBS in order to sign up for a new credit card. She signed all the documents relating to the credit card and agreed to all the bank’s terms and conditions. 

She was asked by the lender to apply for PPI, to which she clearly disagreed. She signed a box to signify that she agreed with the terms of the credit card but did not sign her consent for PPI. However, after a few months she realised that she still held the policy in her name. 

Confused, she approached the bank after making a PPI check and queried the issue. The bank claimed that she was sold the policy and that she was aware about the same when she was issued her credit card. In a conversation with the Mail, Jean said that the signature on the documents clearly differed from that of her own.  

She also took her case to the head office but failed to receive any help. Frustrated, she contacted the Financial Ombudsman Services, who shockingly claimed that she may have signed the second box (regarding PPI) in a hurry, or that her signature must have varied over a period of time!  

As she was adamant on her complaint and never gave up on the issue even after many years since she was initially mis-sold, the bank finally agreed to pay her the compensation. However, the bank still didn’t take the blame of forging her signature.  

The bank admitted of having conducted a fraud only after a professional graphologist confirmed that the signature on the PPI documents did not belong to Jean Mackay.  

As compensation, RBS paid her £500, years after the fraud was committed. In spite of her not being completely satisfied with the compensation, there was no further important investigation into the matter.  

Check now for FREE
Share this post: