"I'm self employed" was always my standard response when the badly trained salespeople at the banks tried to flog PPI to me, and yet some of them ploughed on telling me how they would pay my premiums if ever I was made redundant, I'd let them waffle on some more and then inform them that I could make myself redundant tomorrow and they'd pay all my loans back then - and still some of them couldn't get it through their heads that they shouldn't be selling the product to me.

I'm not surprised that ALL of the banks are having to make provisions to pay back millions in compensation, maybe they'll now also consider that they are a service organisation and not a product selling organisation.

That was part of my claim. I said initially I was self-employed. They then said I'd be covered. I put it in writing that I was only taking it out on the basis they had confirmed it covered self-employment. When I came to look back at it and claim the policy referred to employment - so I argued they would not have paid out anyway. They conceded I had a point (even though when I then looked carefully at the policy document I saw that self-employment was actually covered in the definition of employment!).

Many did indeed cover self-employment, the problems arose when the self-employment ceased. If it was due to insovency or winding the business up to avoid insolvency, the claims were rejected on the basis of negligence.

Like I said I origionally thought that this was where the mis-selling had taken place.
The thought that they hadn't and should have given you the option to go elsewhere never entered my head