mis-selling?

CLAPTON

ermintrude1 wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback – it does help.

When I posted last night I didn’t think there was any complaint re the ppi, as he did want it, although without being fully aware of the conditions other than what was discussed. Since then I’ve found the ‘recommendation summary’ which I’m still studying, but it seems apparent to me at moment is that he’s only got life cover, when he wanted payment protection.

My main gripe was that he should have been told to seek mortgage advice, or at least investigated all the options – this was not a housing association purchase but one involving family members – all complete novice first time buyers. He’s simply been sold the most expensive loan product they had available, not the most suitable for his requirements.

I know that if someone tries to sell me a pension, they must advise me that I would be better off in an employer contribution scheme, if one is available.

Perhaps this legislation applies only to pensions? I don’t know

There are indeed different rules for different products and situations.

In this case its almost certainly true that somewhere in the market palce there was a cheaper suitable mortgage product so best advice should have been to tell him to go elsewhere... would he have been happy with that?

ILW

ermintrude1 wrote: »

Yes he takes full responsibility, and is now very aware of the dangers of believing smooth talking sales girls with targets.

Why did he not seek alternative quotes and advice at the time?
Was he actually told there was no better deal out there for him?
Why do people spending more time and care buying a pair of shoes than they do taking out loans for thousands?
Am I missing something?

ermintrude1

ILW, I can't answer that, whats done is done. I am here questioning if there's anything to be done rectrospectively.

The general feedback I have received seems to be 'caveat emptor' and the seller has no responsibilty to client in these circumstances.

ILW

ermintrude1 wrote: »

My main gripe was that he should have been told to seek mortgage advice, or at least investigated all the options – .

Using that logic it suggests that if I buy my shopping in Sainsburys, when I get to the checkout I should then be advised that I can get my beans cheaper at Tesco. I would suggest it is up to the buyer to research any product BEFORE buying.

CLAPTON

ermintrude1 wrote: »

ILW, I can't answer that, whats done is done. I am here questioning if there's anything to be done rectrospectively.

The general feedback I have received seems to be 'caveat emptor' and the seller has no responsibilty to client in these circumstances.

Basically there is no general requirement for a lender to give best advice or indeed any advice.
They are not IFAs and in general the staff are not certified to give best advice.
Pensions and investments (where advice is given) have different rules and mis-selling is sometimes an issue.

Many banks however like to think they behave in a reasonable manner and there is of course nothing to stop your BF from writing to complain and who knows, he may be successful.

ermintrude1

Good advice ILF, yet I believe there are thousands of people on this site alone reclaiming ppi payments because they simply didn't check their repayment amounts tallied with the interest rate quoted.

CLAPTON

ermintrude1 wrote: »

Good advice, yet I believe there are thousands of people on this site alone reclaiming ppi payments because they simply didn't check their repayment amounts tallied with the interest rate quoted.

I believe that most of the PPI claims are based on being given false information (you MUST take PPI otherwise you won't get the loan) and the general selling of the product to people who can't claim (e.g. self employed) plus a recognition that they are rip off prices.

ermintrude1

I agree with you Clapton, but, how is the 'ordinary man in the street' able to be aware of 'traps' like that unless it's been highlighted and the info put into the public domain as MSE has done?

My BF's problem is due to him not doing his research and placing far too much trust in a High Street name who he believed were acting in his best interest.

I personally can't see much difference between someone signing an agreement to take ppi because they're told they must and BF agreeing to a personal loan that Lloyds say is 'the most suited to his needs'

CLAPTON

ermintrude1 wrote: »

I agree with you Clapton, but, how is the 'ordinary man in the street' able to be aware of 'traps' like that unless it's been highlighted and the info put into the public domain as MSE has done?

My BF's problem is due to him not doing his research and placing far too much trust in a High Street name who he believed were acting in his best interest.

I personally can't see much difference between someone signing an agreement to take ppi because they're told they must and BF agreeing to a personal loan that Lloyds say is 'the most suited to his needs'

In part I quite agree; what is acceptable is a bit arbitary. it took a long time for pension mis-selling to be recognised as being eligible for compensation, similarly with 'illegal bank charges' and PPI..only recently been seen as something worthy of compensation.

jonesMUFCforever

ermintrude1 wrote: »

Thanks for all the feedback – it does help.

When I posted last night I didn’t think there was any complaint re the ppi, as he did want it, although without being fully aware of the conditions other than what was discussed. Since then I’ve found the ‘recommendation summary’ which I’m still studying, but it seems apparent to me at moment is that he’s only got life cover, when he wanted payment protection.

My main gripe was that he should have been told to seek mortgage advice, or at least investigated all the options – this was not a housing association purchase but one involving family members – all complete novice first time buyers. He’s simply been sold the most expensive loan product they had available, not the most suitable for his requirements.

I know that if someone tries to sell me a pension, they must advise me that I would be better off in an employer contribution scheme, if one is available.

Perhaps this legislation applies only to pensions? I don’t know

If he has a normal personal loan with PPI then he will have unemployment cover as well as life cover. Please read the loan insurance booklet which came with the loan.
As for buying the house all purchasers would have had to be on the one mortgage if they were borrowing by this means. You can't have a situation where 2 or 3 family members have 2 or 3 separate mortgages or secured loans.
The more I read of this thread the more I think the bank has not done much wrong.