Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Martin Jackson received £16,000 after complaining he had been mis-sold payment protection insurance
Martin Jackson, who received £16,000 after complaining he'd been mis-sold PPI. Photograph: Tony Charnock Photography
Martin Jackson, who received £16,000 after complaining he'd been mis-sold PPI. Photograph: Tony Charnock Photography

Payment protection insurance: How I won a £16,000 refund

This article is more than 13 years old
PPI customers can claim refunds on mis-sold insurance deals as the FSA wins a high court battle on their behalf

Martin Jackson has received a payout of just over £16,000 after complaining he had been mis-sold payment protection insurance (PPI) on a loan and two credit cards.

Jackson, a company director from Redditch, Worcestershire, had taken out a consolidation loan to better manage his finances. He opted for a loan with an online bank that would pay off several debts including two of his credit cards. He says now that it was not made clear that the PPI was optional on the loan; he believed it to be an integral part of the agreement.

As the debate about payment protection insurance became more widespread in the media, Jackson went online and decided to sign up with claims management company Brunel Franklin, which helps people pursue their complaints in return for a 25%, plus VAT, cut of any compensation recovered.

"The PPI appeared to be automatically included in my agreement, although I had not been advised of any details on cost, or any terms and conditions about PPI being optional," said Jackson. "When I realised the situation and calculated the actual cost of the PPI that I didn't need, I was astonished."

Once he had looked at his loan, he then sought a PPI refund on both of his credit cards, to which he had also been making regular repayments. The claims firm contacted the two companies on Jackson's behalf, and within a few months had secured refunds on all three accounts. Including PPI premiums and associated interest, these came to £8,477 from the credit card firm and £7,605 from the bank.

"Now at the end of the process, I am angry, yet philosophical," said Jackson. "I think it is disgraceful that banks have not made their customers more aware of the facts, and are not more proactive about refunding money back to people for mis-sold financial products. Many people being mis-sold PPI appear to be those who can least afford to be paying for expensive, worthless insurance in the first place."

He added it was vital to keep a record of past loans and statements: "I have several claims I could make, but some are now too old and others I am unable to trace because the banks concerned will not tell me what they are."

Sally Bowyer, managing director of Brunel Franklin, said of the ruling: "This is a triumph for consumers and for common sense. We always believed the banks' legal arguments were flawed, and we are pleased consumers now appear free to claim the refunds we believe they have always been entitled to. Of course, the legal process may continue, with further appeal possible."

She added: "The net result of all these expensive legal proceedings is that no stay exists on PPI cases, and consumers can therefore continue to claim refunds against mis-sold PPI in the normal way."

Most viewed

Most viewed