PPI Mis-Sold to Military Personnel
Serving in the armed forces comes with a number of professional benefits. Amongst them are Government backed assurances that, in certain situations, should your capacity to perform your role be compromised due to an injury or accident, you will be given financial support. In addition, should you be forced to give up work entirely, you may well be entitled to receive an army pension, or to draw benefit from another similar scheme.
In light of this, those working in such professions stand to gain little or nothing from holding a payment protection insurance policy. Such products are designed to ensure that a borrower will still have a way of repaying their debts should their earning power be reduced as a result of unforeseen circumstances, most commonly accident, injury, illness or unemployment.
Of course, those in the armed forces are not entirely immune from the threat of redundancy, but unemployment cover is only one element of the average PPI policy. If you’re sold such a policy, though it may not be entirely useless, you will not require the protection it offers against illness or injury given the entitlements attached to your profession. As such, you’ll be paying for cover that you simply don’t need.
Needless to say, anyone who understands this is highly unlikely to wish to avail themselves of such a product. This hasn’t stopped lending institutions trying to bolster their profits by recommending PPI to people already covered by comprehensive benefit schemes. Obviously, selling a product to someone who doesn’t need it is much easier if you do not disclose all the facts, or if you opt for an extremely hard sell (as in this case study in which a man with 20 years army experience was pressured into taking out PPI and later awarded compensation by the financial ombudsman.)
If you were misled into taking PPI despite already having cover, you should be able reclaim your money. You may think it will be difficult to conclusively prove that the sales agent who sold you a policy was not forthcoming about the fact that, given your employment status, it offered little or no benefit to you. However, many banks and other institutions are only too aware that they were they were trying to foist these polices on people irrespective of their need of, or even their eligibility for cover.
Indeed, the very fact that you’ll be able to demonstrate you were already inline to receive similar benefits as those offered by the PPI policy may, in of itself, be sufficient for the provider to admit fault. (In some cases, the branches where mis-selling occurred were located near military bases and, through having lots of customers in the forces, they knew exactly why PPI should not be sold to them, yet pursued the extra profits anyway.)
When it comes to claiming back PPI it does not matter if you have since left the forces. As long as you were working in such a capacity at the time that the insurance was sold to you, you will still have good grounds to claim your money back.
Of course, it’s not just members of the military whose work benefits negate the need for PPI. There are a wide variety of roles in the public sector, and some in the private sector too, where an individual will be provided for to a sufficient level that they can meet their debts, even when unable to work. If you work in such a role, you too will have grounds to claim. For example, those in the emergency services, civil servants and teachers are often supplied with long term sick pay. Likewise, those in the employ of the National Health Service may be able to state a similar case. If this sounds like it applies to you, you have nothing to lose by attempting the recover your money.