MPPI rejection letter - explanation sought please
Options
peterr_ibg
Posts: 22 Forumite
We received a letter from Nationwide today that rejected our claim for miselling of our MPPI
They give various reasons, however before I consider challenging the decision with FOS I wondered if anyone could explain part of what they have said?
They state that the sale in 1997 was conducted on a 'nonadvised basis' and as such their only responsibility was to provide information, and not confirm our personal circumstances or assess the suitability of the policy.
They go on to write that in 2003, ( following a request for a mortgage to fund the building of an extension on the property purchased in 1997), that they recommended amending the policy, but we didn't have to accept their recommendation.
This sounds to me like they are trying to have their cake and eat it. On one hand the claim is rejected because its un advised and our responsbility, and on the other it was then advised, but our decision whether to accept their advice.
In fact , I have a copy of a letter I was sent in 1997 , in that letter they state ' We also discussed the optional Premium Protection and upon balance you have decided to have this included upon both of you....... full details of this option are provided in the Technical guide that you hold" . Is this classed as an non-advised sale? It felt at the time that we were being given advise.
They give various reasons, however before I consider challenging the decision with FOS I wondered if anyone could explain part of what they have said?
They state that the sale in 1997 was conducted on a 'nonadvised basis' and as such their only responsibility was to provide information, and not confirm our personal circumstances or assess the suitability of the policy.
They go on to write that in 2003, ( following a request for a mortgage to fund the building of an extension on the property purchased in 1997), that they recommended amending the policy, but we didn't have to accept their recommendation.
This sounds to me like they are trying to have their cake and eat it. On one hand the claim is rejected because its un advised and our responsbility, and on the other it was then advised, but our decision whether to accept their advice.
In fact , I have a copy of a letter I was sent in 1997 , in that letter they state ' We also discussed the optional Premium Protection and upon balance you have decided to have this included upon both of you....... full details of this option are provided in the Technical guide that you hold" . Is this classed as an non-advised sale? It felt at the time that we were being given advise.
0
Comments
-
A mis-selling complaint needs to focus on the actual sale, not any "recommendations" that may have come years later.
You need to understand the difference between "advised" and "non-advised". Your MPPI was "non-advised" because you bought it rather than being actively sold it by a broker or mortgage adviser.
Nothing you have said indicates any reason to challenge the Bank's rejection, I'm afraid.
Most Mortgage PPI complaints are rejected.0 -
They state that the sale in 1997 was conducted on a 'nonadvised basis' and as such their only responsibility was to provide information, and not confirm our personal circumstances or assess the suitability of the policy.
Advised cases have a higher standard of consumer protection and greater requirements on the adviser/firm. Non-advised do not require the same standards. Most branch sold MPPI from that era would have been non-advised.This sounds to me like they are trying to have their cake and eat it. On one hand the claim is rejected because its un advised and our responsbility, and on the other it was then advised, but our decision whether to accept their advice.
Doesnt sound like that to me. They are saying that the original sale was not advised but a later potential amendment may have been advised.In fact , I have a copy of a letter I was sent in 1997 , in that letter they state ' We also discussed the optional Premium Protection and upon balance you have decided to have this included upon both of you....... full details of this option are provided in the Technical guide that you hold" . Is this classed as an non-advised sale?
It reads exactly as a non-advised case would be. i.e. "you have decided"
Sometimes the phrase "advice" gets muddied as it has a regulatory meaning and it has a more general English language meaning. Advice from a regulated financial adviser is different to advice from an unregulated bank clerk.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
The original notes fron 1997 were from an advisor at the Society with the title Financial Consultant. I remember we had to speak with him regardng the endowments and life assurance etc as the branch manager who was arranging the mortage was not allowed to.
The basis of the complaint was not about whether the sale was advised or not, but rather with regard to the issue of whether the product we wre sold was appropriate.
I had a previously declared health condition ( heart attack) and this was discussed at my meeting in 1997 hence the reason we didnt take out critical illness cover. Im confused then, as the policy would not have paid out in case of a claim relating to my heart condition. So if it was non advised ( which I thought it was given the member of staffs title etc), then why did they not advise about the health exclusion when it was advised in 2003? Then I could have made a decision as to whether to take the policy or not.0 -
The original notes fron 1997 were from an advisor at the Society with the title Financial Consultant.
Does not mean it was advised. The product itself didnt become regulated until January 2005. Advisers can put in place regulated and non-regulated products.but rather with regard to the issue of whether the product we wre sold was appropriate.
non-advised does not have to check if it is appropriate. Advised does.
It doesnt matter if it doesnt pay out on heart conditions. Exclusions are allowed. What matters is whether your condition was severe enough to make a claim on the policy unlikely for unrelated issues or would most conditions be related.I had a previously declared health condition ( heart attack) and this was discussed at my meeting in 1997 hence the reason we didnt take out critical illness cover. Im confused then, as the policy would not have paid out in case of a claim relating to my heart condition.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »
Most Mortgage PPI complaints are rejected.
Can you provide a source for this information?0 -
sussexbhoy wrote: »Can you provide a source for this information?
The FOS. Loan and credit card PPI is mostly upheld. MPPI is mostly rejected.
The FSCS gave their figure a couple of years ago for mortgage brokers and they only upheld 5%. Most of those were single premium MPPI (which is virtually always classed as bad).I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
The FOS. Loan and credit card PPI is mostly upheld. MPPI is mostly rejected.
The FSCS gave their figure a couple of years ago for mortgage brokers and they only upheld 5%. Most of those were single premium MPPI (which is virtually always classed as bad).
This is direct from the FCA,
The uphold rate for the regular premium mortgage PPI product (the type we previously assessed as least prone to poor selling practices) is now around 50%, and we are comfortable with most firms’ approaches to these complaints.0 -
sussexbhoy wrote: »This is direct from the FCA,
The uphold rate for the regular premium mortgage PPI product (the type we previously assessed as least prone to poor selling practices) is now around 50%, and we are comfortable with most firms’ approaches to these complaints.
And here is the source
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/thematic-reviews/tr14-14.pdf
Page 120
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards