Payplan Cover My Life CML Open Letter.
Payplan Cover My Life CML Open Letter that I sent today the24th of June 2025, this site is all about transparancy and my own personal debt jorney thats both educational and sincere.
Payplan Cover My Life CML Open Letter is as follows for our growing reader base.
Hi Payplan Complaints Officer,
Thank you for your previous response. I do need to clarify one point you raised, because it appears to conflict with both the documentation and the operational reality of the Cover My Life scheme.
You stated:
“The scheme would have provided a potential benefit in the event of your death, with payments made towards your debts and any remaining funds payable to your estate.”
Although I had some doubts a few years ago, I only became fully aware of the true position around three months ago, after carrying out detailed due diligence — including reviewing my DSAR, analysing the CML documentation, and researching how the product was intended to operate. It was only at that point that I realised the benefit described could not have been delivered in practice.
My recent research into these issues has also made me aware that the points above directly conflict with three separate legal and regulatory frameworks: (1) the FCA’s ‘clear, fair and not misleading’ rules under CONC and PRIN, (2) the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 regarding misleading actions and omissions, and (3) the Consumer Duty requirements to avoid foreseeable harm and provide information customers can reasonably understand. These conflicts now require clear answers from PayPlan, particularly as this correspondence may need to be provided to the Financial Ombudsman Service if the matter proceeds to them.
ONLY FOR OUR READERS; To fully understand the above after reading this thread comeback to this link to our definitions page where it will all be explained. DMP Definitions page.
You have stated that the CML scheme was not mis‑sold. However, if the benefit you describe is impossible to deliver in law, unsupported by any operational process, and inconsistent with FCA rules on clear, fair and not misleading communications, then the product could not have been sold in a compliant manner. A product that cannot legally or practically operate is, by definition, mis‑sold. I therefore need PayPlan to explain how the scheme could be considered compliant if the core benefit was impossible to provide.
I say this because:
- there is no claims process
- there is no next‑of‑kin notification process
- there is no payout mechanism
- there is no evidence of any payouts ever being made
- there is no operational workflow for settling debts after death
- there is no explanation of how PayPlan would know a client had died
- unsecured debts are automatically written off on death, so there would be no debts to “pay off”
- there is no legal or regulatory basis for distributing funds to an estate
Given these points, I would be grateful if you could explain:
- How PayPlan would have been notified of a customer’s death.
- How a claim would have been initiated, and by whom.
- What form, process or documentation the next of kin would have used.
- How the amount payable was calculated, including the fixed £20,000 figure.
- How funds would legally be transferred to an estate.
- Why none of this was disclosed to customers at any point.
I am not making any assumptions — I simply need to understand how the benefit you described could have operated in reality, given the absence of any supporting processes or documentation.
Kind regards, Brian
If this falls outside your remit, please forward this to PayPlan’s Compliance or Risk team so they can address the regulatory points raised.
To our readership the above questions are in reality impossible to answer as there is no REAL CML product its scam and it even convined me, a very well known freelance probate fraud investigator for 14 long years so if you have just understood why it cant be real you are NOT alone theres millions of us in the same boat!