Halifax Total Mortgage Protection Plan PPI reclamation ?

dunstonh wrote: »

MPPI "can" pay out out in addition but PHI will not. From past posts, I am of the impression that the Halfax TMPP is one of those that checks other sickness income.




The cover provided for mortgage and house related insurance products etc.

I thought so, would you say that his document then applies to "expenditure related mortgage insurance" also....

http://www.abi.org.uk/Information/Co..._Notes/531.pdf

Products Covered by the Income Protection Model Key Features Document (KFD)
2.4 If the product is primarily income protection (which may or may not include waiver of premium) then the model KFD should be used. A similar format should apply to the following contracts with appropriate amendments:
• Housepersons policies (i.e. policies for housewives, househusbands etc.);
• Expenditure related (e.g mortgage) protection plans.

I realise why they "include" expenditure related Mortgage polices and it is because they are (as you stated last year) paid over to the consumer and not to the Mortgage Direct. Hence why the Key Features in mentioning how "other insurance" affects claims should be included since Jan 2004. Our MPPI covered "extras" too?

What do you think.? You were correct last year and so was every other IFA that replied to me?

the very fact i was told that i had to have full inclusive tmpp (2 witnesses) is a mis-sale surely?

Prove it. If you can, you will win your complaint unless the mortgage deal actually did require the insurance (which some have and that is allowed).

i had no idea that i could have gone elsewhere.

And its not for Halifax to tell you that.

righty....well are you saying that this qoute from this websites ppi reclaim guide is not applicable?-

Yes. A number of guides on this website contain errors or more commonly generalisations which can be correct in most cases but wrong in others.

You may've been told insurance was compulsory – it isn't, and that alone counts as mis-selling. Plus, the self-employed, unemployed, retired, those with pre-existing conditions, or who are covered elsewhere, have all commonly been flogged unnecessary policies.'

Clearly in that bit of the guide you have a couple errors.
1 - where it was compulsory, then you were not told wrong as lenders were allowed to insist on insurances as part of a deal. It was very common up to the late 90s. However, you still find it happening today but not as common. Where you were told it was compulsory and it was compulsory then that is not wrong. Where you were told it was compulsory but it wasnt, that is wrong. That is the bit the article refers to .

2 - If you are self employed then some PPI does not cover the self employed or have restrictions that make it useless. Typically on credit card and loan. However, most MPPI do cover the self employed. So, it should really say that some PPI plans may not cover self employed.

3 - If you have pre-existing conditions, that too doesnt void the policy with most PPI. With some it might. However, with others it will just stop claims in illnesses related to that pre-existing condition.

thats exactly what ive described, and is the crux of the recent ruling isnt it?

The recent judicial review ruling had absolutely nothing to do with that. The banks wanted to restrict certain complaints based on timescale. They lost that argument.

along with the fact i didnt have a clue what was normal, and was told i had to go with the

There is no such thing as normal. Although it is considered right to have MPPI. Indeed, the DWP set the mortgage interest payment benefit on the assumption that the person has MPPI and tough to them if they dont.

As for being told you had to have it, then prove it. You may well have been told that. However, if there are no other failings, it has been set up correctly (monthly rather than single premium) and the documentation is all correct then you will likely be rejected.

'Here, the salesperson is responsible to ensure you both understood the terms of any PPI and that the policy was appropriate; this also applies if you took out the policy online but were later called about the insurance, as often happened. This form of mis-selling has often been systematic, with staff being forced to sell policies or face lower pay.'

Correct, and this is where many credit card and loan PPI sales fall down as well. However, MPPI is typically sold via a mortgage adviser. So, a much better audit trail exists as an advice process was used rather than a sales process (although with banks, the two things merge a bit).

again, exactly what happened. as for proving it, witnesses dont count? as i said, the policy was unnecessary as i had better cover already.

depends on the witnesses and what the documentation goes. Close family members can easily be coerced to say what you want to them to say. However, if you do have existing cover and you think its better then all you need to do is provide them details of this and evidence it. Documentary evidence is king.

yes they were informed i had great income cover (i worked with explosives daily, the insurance for loss of income was massive) and those qoutes arent from adverts- they are from money saving experts ppi reclaim guide. im sorry, but i dont get it- ppi , wether loan or mortgage ppi, is missold under those circumstances- which are exactly the case, so if none of what is said in the guide is true why is it existing? i was told in 2005 i had to have their own in house tmpp and no one elses, and that is what is ruled as illegal now, so why is there a doubt here?