Halifax Total Mortgage Protection Plan PPI reclam...

[xiao]

I have read your article regarding PPI reclaiming but I am not sure if my case is the one through which we can claim a PPI refund. Both my wife and I took out a mortgage from Halifax and at the same time took a Halifax Total Mortgage Protection Plan. The Halifax Total Mortgage Protection Plan covered death and critical illness for both of us. At the time I had a job and I had life insurance through my pension. I would be grateful if you could help us clarify whether our case is the one.

Thanks,

[melorablack]

You can claim for mis sale of TMPP in the same way you would claim for PPI mis sale.

[di3004]

For reclaim letter templates, you can use these on the link below, but write your own reasons.
They have 8 weeks to respond in full.
Follow the reclaim procedures on the link and for any further help, let us know, also remember to post all letters by recorded delivery.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/rec...loan-insurance

Good luck.

[dunstonh]

The biggest difference between PPI claims and MPPI is that most MPPI plans are sold by advisers. That means they would have recorded your financial circumstances on a factfind and then made a formal recommendation. So, in these cases, unless you can show there is no financial need, the complaint would be rejected.

At the time I had a job and I had life insurance through my pension.

Doesnt matter. Death in service isnt income protection or critical illness cover and even in respects of life assurance it is not required to be included in shortfall provision for mortgage protection.

You have stated no grounds on which there could be considered a mis-sale. So, why do you think it was?

[hadenoughofthehalifaxnow]

thread necromancy i know, but this was the only relevant one i could find- and with the recent court ruling regarding ppi, does tmpp count as missold ppi if a)i was in distinct terms told i couldnt have the mortgage without it, and b) i already had comprehensive life and income insurance through my job at the time? i cancelled the policy a year or so in because i noticed that i had better cover for free already, but had up to that point been paying around £80 a month....will the halifax now contact me, as per the recent ruling, or do i have to ask them? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[dunstonh]

does tmpp count as missold ppi

Halifax TMPP was a name given to their collection of protection products. This includes life assurance, critical illness, sickness cover and MPPI.

Which elements of the TMPP did you have?

a)i was in distinct terms told i couldnt have the mortgage without it,

If you were told you had to have it and you did then that is allowed and not a mis-sale.
If you were told you had to have it but that was a lie, then its not allowed and is a mis-sale. However, there would be an onus on you to provide evidence of that.

i already had comprehensive life and income insurance through my job at the time?

Employer benefits do not need to be included. Typically employer benefits are there to make up for loss of income if you die and a reduced pension that would occur. So, if you were married or had a partner, then not includng the life element of the work benefit is quite normal and acceptable.

Sickness benefits may be an issue if you had the MPPI element of the TMPP. If your work provided 6 months full, 6 months half then MPPI is largely an overlap and that could be classed as a missale. However, if you had say 3 months full, 3 months half then it is not enough to be classed as an overlap as most MPPI plans dont pay out for the early months anyway and by the time they do, you are on half pay so you need the the MPPI.

will the halifax now contact me, as per the recent ruling

No. The ruling was only about what complaints could be ignored (or not as the case turned out).

Having protection is not considered bad. Nothing has changed on that front.

[roryroo]

I also am chasing Halifax for TMPP we were also told that we had to have it but have later found out because my husband worked abroad and did not pay tax or NI it wouldn't have paid out we have been waiting now 7 months for a conclusion i phone them every week because at the end of the day if the roles were reversed i'm sure i would be inundated with phonecalls and letters.

Originally Posted by dunstonh

Halifax TMPP was a name given to their collection of protection products. This includes life assurance, critical illness, sickness cover and MPPI.

Which elements of the TMPP did you have?



If you were told you had to have it and you did then that is allowed and not a mis-sale.
If you were told you had to have it but that was a lie, then its not allowed and is a mis-sale. However, there would be an onus on you to provide evidence of that.



Employer benefits do not need to be included. Typically employer benefits are there to make up for loss of income if you die and a reduced pension that would occur. So, if you were married or had a partner, then not includng the life element of the work benefit is quite normal and acceptable.

Sickness benefits may be an issue if you had the MPPI element of the TMPP. If your work provided 6 months full, 6 months half then MPPI is largely an overlap and that could be classed as a missale. However, if you had say 3 months full, 3 months half then it is not enough to be classed as an overlap as most MPPI plans dont pay out for the early months anyway and by the time they do, you are on half pay so you need the the MPPI.



No. The ruling was only about what complaints could be ignored (or not as the case turned out).

Having protection is not considered bad. Nothing has changed on that front.

[melymoo]

Has anyone received a payout from tmpp? i did for 2 years. during this time i paid my montly direct debit to the tmpp. when the claim was finished, the direct debits continued to come out of my bank account, i thought this was fine as i needed to claim again due to the illness continuing. However I found out to my shock and dismay that you cannot claim for a certain amount of time if you have already been awarded a payout!!!

I continued to pay my tmpp for over a year, despite being unable to use the tmpp! I then cancelled my tmpp. I want to know if I can reclaim the year and half of £46 direct debits that i was paying despite being unable to claim again!!! any experiences, help is much appreciated.

also it was a few years ago now, so i am unsure if i have a case and if i could get recompense for the money taken from me.

[roonaldo]

Originally Posted by melymoo

I continued to pay my tmpp for over a year, despite being unable to use the tmpp! I then cancelled my tmpp. I want to know if I can reclaim the year and half of £46 direct debits that i was paying despite being unable to claim again!!!

that not a reason for mis-sale. if it paid in the first instance then you were eligible for it and it was obviously suitable for you as you have displayed that you had a need for it.

also if it were found to be mis-sold any claims payments you received would be taken off a refund of premiums, which could mean you would get little or nil

[dunstonh]

The halifax TMPP includes life assurance, Critical illness and sickness insurance. So, the premiums being paid could well be for segments of cover.

I want to know if I can reclaim the year and half of £46 direct debits that i was paying despite being unable to claim again!!

Cant see why you should as you are building up entitlement to claim on any other future illness.

[marshallka]

Originally Posted by dunstonh

Sickness benefits may be an issue if you had the MPPI element of the TMPP. If your work provided 6 months full, 6 months half then MPPI is largely an overlap and that could be classed as a missale. However, if you had say 3 months full, 3 months half then it is not enough to be classed as an overlap as most MPPI plans dont pay out for the early months anyway and by the time they do, you are on half pay so you need the the MPPI.

You said that to me Dunstonh BUT then roonaldo says that


The PPI would pay out on top of sick pay.

When full sick pay ran out or if you were made redundant, how would you of paid the mortgage that was only in your name?
(this was about mortgage PPI incidently).

I have no idea which is true TBH.

What is expenditure related Mortgage Protection?

[dunstonh]

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.

What is expenditure related Mortgage Protection?

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

[marshallka]

Originally Posted by dunstonh

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?

[roonaldo]

What I mean is:

Originally Posted by marshallka

The PPI would pay out on top of sick pay.

Most PPI policies have an exclusion period, usually 30 or 60 days, after this time you can make a claim. Sick pay is irrelevant as not taken into account when make a claim. It will pay on top of.

When full sick pay ran out or if you were made redundant, how would you of paid the mortgage that was only in your name?

I was just referring to the fact that if you had eg 3 or 6 months sick pay, if living on your own, there would be no income after that time if no insurance. At least with the PPI it would continue to pay out for 12, 24 or even up to 60 months for sickness on some.

[lbobhbsb]

Hi,

We had TMPP with the Halifax, which was supposed to be all singing make the tea policy. It was sold to us as a brilliant product especially as my husband is self employed. Recession hit, my husband did not work for 30 consecutive days, phoned the insurance - guess what you had to be nearly bankrupt before they would pay out.
Wrote to Halifax saying it was mis-sold to us, they wrote back standard reply of tough luck. Took to FoS, complaint upheld. It has taken nearly a year, but yesterday we found out that the Halifax have agreed with the findings of the FoS and we will get a full refund of our premiums.
Go for it what have you got to lose - be prepared for a long wait though and lots of phone calls.
The only thing I can't work out, is how to calculate the interest.
Hope this helps

[hadenoughofthehalifaxnow]

the advisor who sold the mortgage to me on several occasions explicitly said 'the mortgage is only available if the full tmpp policy is taken'. no employment insurance etc was even ever asked about. not only that but the mortgage itself had to be split 70/30 with a silent partner there to make up the 30%-the advisor was completely aware that the silent partner wasnt going to contribute at all, but to her it was obviously all about the sale. the very fact i was told that i had to have full inclusive tmpp (2 witnesses) is a mis-sale surely? at the time it was all blindsiding to me, i had no idea that i could have gone elsewhere. it was my first and only mortgage, no partner etc for their insurances to be considered either. at my wits end with this bank over several issues, mainly mortgage related, but a year or twos worth of nearly £90 a month seemingly unnecessary payments (as i said, my job had beter policy for free) would go a long way towards getting them off my back!

[dunstonh]

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.

[hadenoughofthehalifaxnow]

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

thats exactly what ive described, and is the crux of the recent ruling isnt it? along with the fact i didnt have a clue what was normal, and was told i had to go with them- which brings me to the adjoining qoute from mse ppi guide-
'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.'

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

[dunstonh]

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.

[roonaldo]

Originally Posted by hadenoughofthehalifaxnow

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

They are sales people and you're quoting an advert, it would be more relevent to quote something from the FSA website, not an advert. Furthermore CMC's are famous for mis-leading people.

'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.'

What form of mis-selling relates to you? you quoted some generic statement from an advert.

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

Documentary evidence would always rule over what some recollects. Did you inform the adviser you had cover? The firm would not be at fault for undisclosed material facts. Also this would only be applicable for advised sales, non- advised sales it would be your responsibility to decide if its suitable.