Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • miffythesmartbunny
    • By miffythesmartbunny 17th Oct 16, 12:29 PM
    • 31Posts
    • 46Thanks
    miffythesmartbunny
    Rejecting by Ombudsman Investigator - Advice please
    • #1
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:29 PM
    Rejecting by Ombudsman Investigator - Advice please 17th Oct 16 at 12:29 PM
    Hi there,

    I am complaining on behalf of my father for two loans that he took out PPI on. Sorry for the length!

    When I first complained to his bank they agreed to refund the difference between his single premium policy (paid upfront and added to cost of loan) and a regular monthly premium policy which they said would have been more appropriate for him. My issue is that neither policy was right for him. He didn't need PPI and we believe it was missold for the following reasons:

    - the policy was heavily impressed on him
    - he’d explained that he was financially secure and wouldn’t benefit from the policy but was told it was part of the loan
    - the policy wasn’t suitable for him as he had savings, life insurance and a permanent employment with sick pay
    - the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement

    However, the ombudsman upheld the bank's offer and said it was fair because the bank admitted that the cancellation terms of the policy weren’t made clear to him.


    For the second loan:
    The ombudsman also said that although the bank could not provide his original application form, they've sent through a sample application form and based on this she has concluded that he would’ve been required to tick for the policy and also print his name for it to be take out. So she hasn't seen enough to suggest he would’ve been told the policy was a part of the loan and that he had to have it. And there isn't enough to suggest he wasn’t given a real choice on whether or not to take out the policy.

    My issue is that regardless of the documentation they've provided, the sales adviser very much forced this policy upon him. No doubt on some sort of commission for selling the policy.

    The ombudsman admits that she thinks some of the information given could’ve been clearer, but regardless of whether he had been given better information about the policy, this wouldn’t have influenced his decision to take out the policy.

    Any advice on how to proceed and whether it's worth asking for an ombudsman to review it?

    Finally, if the ombudsman reviews it and still favours the bank, is my father still entitled to the refund/offer that the bank made?

    Thank you in advance
Page 1
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 17th Oct 16, 12:38 PM
    • 2,988 Posts
    • 1,623 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #2
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:38 PM
    • #2
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:38 PM
    If it was the adjudicator that reviewed it you can go to the Ombudsman but they rarely overrule the adjudicators. The bank might have withdrawn the offer once the complaint was referred to the FOS or keep the first offer in place

    The complaint reasons are pretty mixed

    - the policy was heavily impressed on him
    = hearsay

    -he’d explained that he was financially secure and wouldn’t benefit from the policy but was told it was part of the loan
    = hearsay and if he was eligible (such as it paying alongside any benefits) they that's not miss-sale

    - the policy wasn’t suitable for him as he had savings, life insurance and a permanent employment with sick pay
    = if he had savings that could pay off the loan, why borrow money in the first place and pay a huge amount of interest vs what he would get from savings?
    = Life insurance is not a payment reason - if you think about it you are suggesting if he had trouble paying it off he could just die.
    = Permanent job - police yes, anywhere else, no. Benefits = depends if the PPI would pay out as well

    Second loan wise
    Your complaint is hearsay, if he ticked the box and signed it then that is all they can judge it on. Bank staff may or may not have been on commission. Can you prove any of that happened?

    All you can do is refer up and see what happens, 80-90% of the decisions will be upheld, so odds are against an overturn
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 17th Oct 16, 12:57 PM
    • 85,142 Posts
    • 50,153 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:57 PM
    • #3
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:57 PM
    - the policy was heavily impressed on him
    Possible but this reason is weakened by the length of time it took between the sale and the complaint. People who are genuinely pressured to complain more or less immediately. Not years or decades later. It is a very difficult complaint to succeed on. Unlikely to be any evidence to back up the allegation. Hence why time taken to complaint is really the only guide.

    - he’d explained that he was financially secure and wouldn’t benefit from the policy but was told it was part of the loan
    If the adjudicator rejected the complaint then it means he would have benefited from the policy. i.e. he was eligible. If he was financially secure, why was he taking out a loan?

    - the policy wasn’t suitable for him as he had savings, life insurance and a permanent employment with sick pay
    If he had savings, why was he taking out a loan?
    Life assurance doesnt overlap with PPI
    Permanent employment with sick pay can be a possible reason but it really needs to be 12 months sick pay and most have nowhere near that.

    - the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement
    unprovable allegation.

    My issue is that regardless of the documentation they've provided, the sales adviser very much forced this policy upon him. No doubt on some sort of commission for selling the policy.
    What evidence do you have to back that allegation up?

    Finally, if the ombudsman reviews it and still favours the bank, is my father still entitled to the refund/offer that the bank made?
    That is up to the bank. They can withdraw goodwill offers if you choose to go to the FOS. Most likely they will pay the difference in loan one as the FOS seems happy with that solution.

    Any advice on how to proceed and whether it's worth asking for an ombudsman to review it?
    PPI complaint decisions are not complicated areas of financial planning. So, an adjudicator is unlikely to get it wrong. Referring it to an ombudsman is open to you but you need to have answers to the points made. You cant keep repeating the same thing and expect a change in decision. You have to counter the reasons with evidence. If no evidence exists then do remember that English law goes with the defendant (the bank in this case). The onus is on the one making the allegation.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 17th Oct 16, 12:59 PM
    • 17,246 Posts
    • 7,783 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #4
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:59 PM
    • #4
    • 17th Oct 16, 12:59 PM
    Any advice on how to proceed and whether it's worth asking for an ombudsman to review it?
    Originally posted by miffythesmartbunny
    It's very much your own choice.
    However, your complaint reasons are weak and I can't see any compelling evidence that might sway the Ombudsman.
    You may well believe the insurance was "forced" upon your father, but you have no actual evidence to back this up. In fact, when you claim that your father was financially secure it immediately beggars the question of why he allegedly allowed the bank to railroad him into taking out insurance on a loan he apparently did not need?

    Unfortunately, most of your complaint looks like it was copy pasted from a template. These rarely meet with success unless the Bank finds other faults with the sale as part of their investigation.

    You also pin far too much importance on the Bank's inability to produce the original application form. It's really not required unless it somehow showed that a mis-sale took place. It wouldn't have.

    Personally, I would have been content with the partial success you achieved at the outset. I'm certain the Bank will still pay the difference between the regular and single premium policy..
    • miffythesmartbunny
    • By miffythesmartbunny 17th Oct 16, 3:32 PM
    • 31 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    miffythesmartbunny
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 16, 3:32 PM
    • #5
    • 17th Oct 16, 3:32 PM
    Thank you for responses. I appreciate you taking the time out to respond.

    Unfortunately my father is a little easily led where insurance is concerned. Despite his financial stability, he was talked into taking out these PPI policies on both loans. He applied in his local branch and for one of the loans, recalls the advisor going for the hard sell and suggesting he would have a better chance of being accepted if he took the policy out. It is so frustrating that there is no way to prove this! The time between the policy being taken out and the complaint being lodged is because at the time, he didn't see anything wrong with the adviser's actions. Now, with the publicity around PPI, it is clear that this practice is misselling.

    With regards to savings, these were with the Credit Union, where he was advised not to touch his savings. Silly on his part, I know. I now take care of most of his finances!!!

    Anyhow, thanks for the advice 👍🏻
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 17th Oct 16, 3:50 PM
    • 85,142 Posts
    • 50,153 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 16, 3:50 PM
    • #6
    • 17th Oct 16, 3:50 PM
    With regards to savings, these were with the Credit Union, where he was advised not to touch his savings. Silly on his part, I know. I now take care of most of his finances!!!
    Perhaps a complaint should be made to them as that is bad advice.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 17th Oct 16, 4:12 PM
    • 6,468 Posts
    • 3,733 Thanks
    -taff
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 16, 4:12 PM
    • #7
    • 17th Oct 16, 4:12 PM
    You should have complained using single premium as a cmplaint reason.

    What you actually complained about was unprovable, as Dunston has said.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 17th Oct 16, 4:45 PM
    • 2,988 Posts
    • 1,623 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    • #8
    • 17th Oct 16, 4:45 PM
    • #8
    • 17th Oct 16, 4:45 PM
    You should have complained using single premium as a cmplaint reason.

    What you actually complained about was unprovable, as Dunston has said.
    Originally posted by -taff
    They did, the bank agreed and refunded the difference between that and a monthly fee
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 17th Oct 16, 6:53 PM
    • 17,246 Posts
    • 7,783 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #9
    • 17th Oct 16, 6:53 PM
    • #9
    • 17th Oct 16, 6:53 PM
    You should have complained using single premium as a cmplaint reason.
    Originally posted by -taff
    The Bank upheld that reason regardless of whether it was actually complained about . The OP was offered the difference between single premium and monthly premium. The OP chose to reject this and refer the complaint to the ombudsman.
    • WatchMan
    • By WatchMan 17th Oct 16, 8:13 PM
    • 183 Posts
    • 83 Thanks
    WatchMan
    You should have complained using single premium as a cmplaint reason.

    What you actually complained about was unprovable, as Dunston has said.
    Originally posted by -taff
    Even if the OP hadn't mentioned that point, any issues relating to the policy being a single premium would've been considered by the investigator.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 17th Oct 16, 8:58 PM
    • 17,246 Posts
    • 7,783 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    Even if the OP hadn't mentioned that point, any issues relating to the policy being a single premium would've been considered by the investigator.
    Originally posted by WatchMan
    As already established above, the OP didn't complain about single premium, but the Bank still offered partial redress of a refund of the difference in cost.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 18th Oct 16, 1:14 AM
    • 6,468 Posts
    • 3,733 Thanks
    -taff
    These were their complaint reasons, which are mostly unprovable

    He didn't need PPI and we believe it was missold for the following reasons:

    - the policy was heavily impressed on him
    - he’d explained that he was financially secure and wouldn’t benefit from the policy but was told it was part of the loan
    - the policy wasn’t suitable for him as he had savings, life insurance and a permanent employment with sick pay
    - the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement
    Originally posted by miffythesmartbunny
    Single premium as a complaint reason isn't in there at all.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 18th Oct 16, 2:30 PM
    • 17,246 Posts
    • 7,783 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude


    Single premium as a complaint reason isn't in there at all.
    Originally posted by -taff
    I'm not sure why you are going over ground already covered by the thread?
    No one indicated that the OP had complained about Single Premium.

    What has been established was that the Bank upheld the complaint because they identified and offered redress on the basis of Single Premium. The OP was not content with this (probably because their own reasons were rejected) and referred the complaint to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman adjudicator agreed with the Bank's offer of redress.

    In recent times, Single Premium has not been the surefire guarantee of a full refund plus interest that it once was. While certainly a valid mis-selling reason, there have been numerous examples of Banks awarding only the difference in cost between Single Premium and regular monthly. This is where the insurance is identified as being otherwise valid and potentially useful.

    I suppose the OP might be persuaded to appeal the paucity of redress awarded and demand full redress on the basis of Single Premium, but that's another argument entirely.
    Last edited by Moneyineptitude; 18-10-2016 at 3:03 PM.
    • Nasqueron
    • By Nasqueron 18th Oct 16, 3:09 PM
    • 2,988 Posts
    • 1,623 Thanks
    Nasqueron
    I'm not sure why you are going over ground already covered by the thread?
    No one indicated that the OP had complained about Single Premium.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    That was my bad, I thought as they said the bank had upheld the single premium bit and the OP said "the policy was sold as part and parcel of the agreement" that meant they had complained about single premium directly
    • -taff
    • By -taff 19th Oct 16, 2:14 PM
    • 6,468 Posts
    • 3,733 Thanks
    -taff
    Yup, your/you're bad.....

    See what I did there?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,389Posts Today

6,830Users online

Martin's Twitter