Single Premium Mortgage Risk Payment

All the people that I know who paid it, were mis-sold.

It is impossible to be missold MIG.

Either because they were told that it was for their benefit, or because it was a hidden extra fee that wasn't in the headline advertised rate.

MIG hasnt been around for about 25 years. There was talk about it coming back after the credit crunch but the economic situation didnt require it in the end.

It was impossible for it to be a hidden extra. you either paid for it up front or you added it to the mortgage and the offer letter showed the borrowing increased because of it. Back then, everyone went to see the conveyancing solicitor and the terms of the mortgage were explained to them.

Maybe you're being pedantic over what constitutes mis-selling? It's not cut and dried as Plevin highlights.

Plevin has nothing to do with misselling.

Requiring the insurance to be provided by themselves or a named company would indicate that it was mis-sold.

no it wouldnt.

Most people are unaware when they are mis-sold.

Because they were not.

Did their insurance quote beat all of the other quotes you got?

Are you getting this mixed up with something else? You seem to be arguing a position for a consumer insurance. MIG was not a consumer insurance. Indeed, it wasnt really an insurance in the sense you think it was. It was a risk premium where the lender took the risk, not an insurer. The bank may have reassured the risks but that was internal. It was effectively a fee rather than an insurance policy.

It was not possible to buy MIG on the open market. So, a consumer could not get quotes elsewhere.

Asserting that I am in denial, if you are in denial that I'm not, would seem equally so.

It seems you want to redefine what mis-sold means to meet your own morals, but your view point doesn't even seem to match the courts definition of mis-selling. If you follow your argument then it would seem impossible for anything to ever be mis-sold.

Please name a single court case to support your allegation.

phillw wrote: »

All the people that I know who paid it, were mis-sold.

Either because they were told that it was for their benefit, or because it was a hidden extra fee that wasn't in the headline advertised rate.

But sure, if someone is able to honestly and openly sell that insurance then it's up to the buyers. It's never happened yet & I doubt it ever will.

Don't think FOS would agree with you as this typical extract from an Ombudsman decision shows:-

Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee
Ultimately it’s for Manchester BS to decide the terms on which it lends money to customers. That’s a business decision for it to make.
I understand Mr and Mrs C had to take out a mortgage indemnity guarantee, at their own cost. That was a condition of them getting the re-mortgage. Although this condition was imposed by Manchester BS, I don’t think it was unfair for it to do this in this particular case. The purpose of the indemnity was to protect Manchester BS in case Mr and Mrs C’s home had to be repossessed and sold for less than what Mr and Mrs C owed Manchester BS at the time it was sold. The indemnity guarantee would’ve paid any shortfall.
I’ve looked at the mortgage valuation report for the house they were re-mortgaging in 1990. The value of the house in the report is less than the estimated valuation Mr and Mrs C put on their mortgage application. According to the valuation report they were borrowing 75% of the property value – not 65% as Mr and Mrs C have said.
So, the loan to valuation ratio for that time was quite high. And because of this I don’t think it was unreasonable for Manchester BS, as the lender, to insist on the extra security of an indemnity being taken out.