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
    • peterr_ibg
    • By peterr_ibg 20th Mar 17, 6:24 PM
    • 21Posts
    • 2Thanks
    peterr_ibg
    MPPI rejection letter - explanation sought please
    • #1
    • 20th Mar 17, 6:24 PM
    MPPI rejection letter - explanation sought please 20th Mar 17 at 6:24 PM
    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.
Page 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 20th Mar 17, 6:33 PM
    • 18,863 Posts
    • 9,017 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 17, 6:33 PM
    • #2
    • 20th Mar 17, 6:33 PM
    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.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 20th Mar 17, 6:45 PM
    • 88,319 Posts
    • 53,541 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 17, 6:45 PM
    • #3
    • 20th Mar 17, 6:45 PM
    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). 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.
    • peterr_ibg
    • By peterr_ibg 20th Mar 17, 7:05 PM
    • 21 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    peterr_ibg
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 17, 7:05 PM
    • #4
    • 20th Mar 17, 7:05 PM
    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.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 20th Mar 17, 7:19 PM
    • 88,319 Posts
    • 53,541 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 17, 7:19 PM
    • #5
    • 20th Mar 17, 7:19 PM
    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.

    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.
    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 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.
    • sussexbhoy
    • By sussexbhoy 20th Mar 17, 8:20 PM
    • 60 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    sussexbhoy
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:20 PM
    • #6
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:20 PM

    Most Mortgage PPI complaints are rejected.
    Originally posted by Moneyineptitude
    Can you provide a source for this information?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 20th Mar 17, 8:33 PM
    • 88,319 Posts
    • 53,541 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:33 PM
    • #7
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:33 PM
    Can you provide a source for this information?
    Originally posted by sussexbhoy
    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). 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.
    • sussexbhoy
    • By sussexbhoy 20th Mar 17, 8:43 PM
    • 60 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    sussexbhoy
    • #8
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:43 PM
    • #8
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:43 PM
    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).
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    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.
    • sussexbhoy
    • By sussexbhoy 20th Mar 17, 8:46 PM
    • 60 Posts
    • 20 Thanks
    sussexbhoy
    • #9
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:46 PM
    • #9
    • 20th Mar 17, 8:46 PM
    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.
    Originally posted by sussexbhoy
    And here is the source
    https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/thematic-reviews/tr14-14.pdf
    Page 12
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

145Posts Today

1,129Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin