NationWide Claim NEED HELP!

liverpool1988

Hi, Sorry this is really long winded but really need help in sorting this out.

Basically i sent in a PPI template letter for my auntie and they have come back with this reply:

As i understand it Mrs....... belives her Mortgage payment protection insurance (MPPI) policy was mis-sold. Therefore i have investigated their complaint based on the inormation they were provided with at the time o their mortgage interview.

Having review our records, i am unable to agree this policy was mis-sold. regrettably, i do not believe it would ve appropriate to uphold mrs.... complaint. whilst i appreciate the outcome of my investigation is not what you were hoping for, I would like to take this oppurtunity to explain the reasons behind my decision.

in april 2001, mrs.... took out a mortgage with nationwide and at that time chose to protect their mortgage repayments against accident, sickness and unemployment.

A mortgage application form was completed which confirmed the details of the cover they had chosen which included a monthly benefit of £300.00 and a claim benefit of 24 months.

The mortgage application form stated:"We would like the following protection for our mortgage payments against accident, sickness and/or unemployment. Nationwide has provided us with sufficient information, including details of the main exclusions, to make a decision on the type and level of cover needed."

Mrs.... signed this application confirming that they had been provided with sufficient information to allow them to make a decision on the type and level of cover they needed. This policy has always been optional and this is stated on the mortgage application form that mrs... signed.

As mrs... were ablt to make a choice between the differing levels of cover available to them for MPPI i fel this demonstrates that a discusion took place between Mrs.. and the adviser regarding the policy and what is covered to allow them to make this informed decision. During the mortgage interview the main exclusions and restrictions to the policy would have been discussed and then anything relevant to mrs... based on the information they have provided us with. In addition we send full policy documentation to follow up what has been discussed and encourage customers to read this.

The policy document issued to mrs... shortly after completion provided full details about the policy and any exclusions or restrictions.

In addition the policy documents explained this insurance could be cancelled withouth any charge within the statutory 'cooling off' period. It also explained mrs... could cancel this cover at any time by contacting us. this demonstrated that they were under no obligation to purchase or continue with this policy.

Goes onto say that nationwide hasnt been fined by the FSA for mis-selling.

Mrs... says our salesperson stated/implied that taking out the policy would assist their credit applicationand was essential for them to get the assosiateed credit. They were clearly iven a choice on the type and level of cover they required when they completed their mortagge application form. Also confirmed their eligbililty for the policy and signed to confirm nationwide had provided them with sufficient information to make a decision. As ppi is optional taking out the cover would have had no bearing on wehter their mortgage was accepted or not. Acceptance of a mortgage application is dependant on a customers credit file and ability to aford it, whether MPPI is taken is not a factor considered by our underwriters.

There is no evidence that the mortgage adviser they saw would have made them feel pressued into takin out the policy as the poilcy has always been optional. i would add our advisors received no commision and therefore, did not benefit from the sale of this policy.

Mrs... were aware that the policy was optional and if they have since realised that they have alternative insurance cover, the policy could have been cancelled at any time as it is an annually renewable policy paid with their monthly mortgage payments. However the policy would have paid out regardless of any other cover they may have held.

mrs... ave confirmed that they rpovided with sufficient information about the policy and what is covered on their application. as this PPI policy covered their mortgage repayments they would have been aware that there was no set term for this policy as it could be cancelled at any time.

Mrs... are concerned the sales assistant had no financial background. The only members of nationwides staff that would have been permitted to assist mrs.... with their mortgage application would have received all necessary training in relation to our mortgages and assosiated products. therefore, only members of staff with the relevant financial knowledge would have assisted mrs.... with their mortgage application.

In addition policy document explained this insurance could be cancelled without any chagre within the statutoy cooling off period. it also explained mrs... could cancel this cover at any time by contacting us. This demonstrated they were under no obligation to purchase or continue with this policy.

They have basically said they are not paying out and want it to be taken to the FOS!

My auntie assures me that she was mis sold and even though she signed the forms she was really pushed into it and was told it was a necessary policy to have when applying for the mortgage.

Any help is appreciated!

di3004

Hi there

Wishing you luck on this.

Will leave this one for Dunstonh, who should have some useful answers on this for you, fingers crossed all will be resolved soon.;)

PaulinWeston

DEFINITELY sounds like a mis-sold policy to me (from the information you give at least).

The "Evidence" - as NBS put it is very clear: your aunt will state that their salesperson stated/implied that taking out the policy would assist her credit applicationand was essential for them to get the assosiateed credit. I think the FOS would take a very dim view that they are basically accusing her of being a liar!

NBS also admit that "The only members of nationwides staff that would have been permitted to assist mrs.... with their mortgage application would have received all necessary training" - which confirms (IMO) that if they advised your aunt to take out the PPI - it was mis sold.

The fact that the advisor "received no commision" is irrelevent (I bet they still had to achieve a sales target!) - and I bet that Nationwide themselves made something out of the PPI.... You could always ask them to send you the underwriting sheet to confirm what they say is true!!

Stick to your guns and complain!

liverpool1988

I was thinking the same thing should i take this to the FOS?

Thanks for help so far!

dunstonh

hey have basically said they are not paying out and want it to be taken to the FOS!

My auntie assures me that she was mis sold and even though she signed the forms she was really pushed into it and was told it was a necessary policy to have when applying for the mortgage.

Sounds like the Nationwide have a pretty strong case. However, that does not surprise me as its MPPI and not LPPI.

Anybody can claim anything was said after the event. So, the complaint will look at the documentary evidence. MPPI tends to have a stronger audit trail of suitability. So, your aunt needs to provide her proof at what she was told. I suspect she has no proof and that is going to hamper her case.

I was thinking the same thing should i take this to the FOS?

You can do but your Aunt doesnt have a strong case and Nationwide have some pretty strong responses in there. Another problem is that your Aunt has waited 8 years to complain. That weakens her case because if she felt pressured, why did it take so long?

The use of a template letter putting in all sorts of rubbish also didnt help. Template letters have a lower success rate than personalised letters. Whilst the actual reasons for that are not really known, it is believed that it is because people include things in the template letter that are easy to prove didnt apply or didnt happen. So, when it comes to their word against yours and a balance of probability decision needs to be made, the side that has been proven wrong in other things will suffer in that decision.

It appears your Aunt used a loan PPI template letter and some of the things she complained about are easily rejected and that doesnt help her when she has no proof.

I suspect that if she takes it to the FOS then they will have to make a balance of probability decision as she has no proof and given that she has taken so long and been proven wrong in some of her complaint points that she doesnt have a strong case and a refusal is likely.

You never know, but I would not be confident in her shoes.

liverpool1988

I told her about the situation and shes deciding not to persue it now! bad times when people dont get paid out

PaulinWeston

On the other hand...

If your Aunt can remember what was said during the interview with the NBS Adviser (i.e. was pressurised into taking out mppi) then on balance of probability this must be better than NBS simply arguing "there is no evidence?" Has NBS asked their adviser directly if they pressurised your aunt (their letter doesn't say so) - so they are making an assumption. Your aunt was actually there and isn't making an assumption, she's making a claim!

Secondly, if your aunt has only recently discovered that what the NBS adviser said to her constituted a 'mistake' - then it shouldn't make a difference how long after the event she has complained (she has complained immediately she realised that there was a mistake).

Thirdly, NBS "introduce" the argument about commission. Why do they do that??? http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1981625

If you complain to the FOS and they don't uphold your complaint then you could (if you felt strongly enough about it) complain to the county court... OR ... if the premiums add up to more than £5,000 then you may well find a solicitor willing to act for you on a CFA (contigency fee agreement - i.e they recover their costs from the other side). The solicitors may also be able to bespeak the underwriting sheet from NBS to see if any commission was paid.

Just my twopennorth ...

dunstonh

If your Aunt can remember what was said during the interview with the NBS Adviser (i.e. was pressurised into taking out mppi) then on balance of probability this must be better than NBS simply arguing "there is no evidence?" Has NBS asked their adviser directly if they pressurised your aunt (their letter doesn't say so) - so they are making an assumption. Your aunt was actually there and isn't making an assumption, she's making a claim!

The aunt has no evidence. She is making an accusation against Nationwide without any proof. Nationwide wont have much, if any proof on what was said either. That is the problem with complaints about what is said verbally.

So, the complaint will look at documentary evidence that exists and then make a decision based on that and a balance of probability.

Just because the Aunt says it was mis-sold does not mean she automatically gets believed.

If you complain to the FOS and they don't uphold your complaint then you could (if you felt strongly enough about it) complain to the county court... OR ... if the premiums add up to more than £5,000 then you may well find a solicitor willing to act for you on a CFA (contigency fee agreement - i.e they recover their costs from the other side). The solicitors may also be able to bespeak the underwriting sheet from NBS to see if any commission was paid.

And what evidence does the Aunt have to give to the court to support her argument?

PaulinWeston

The aunt isn't making an accusation - she's making a complaint and her proof is what she heard the adviser say.

Her word is good enough! Nationwide haven't even asked their adviser what happened at the interview so they can't claim that what the aunt said isn't true.

IF it went to court... and NBS cant produce the adviser in person to state that the aunt is incorrect then (IMHO) on balance, the aunt's evidence is more robust.

liverpool1988

This could be interesting. I am going to calculate the amount tonight if it isnt 5k though can she still go for it?

dunstonh

The aunt isn't making an accusation - she's making a complaint and her proof is what she heard the adviser say.

She is making a complaint without any evidence to support her case. She also worded the complaint as an accusation by stating the member of staff was not qualified and said a number of things that would be in breach of their process.

Her word is good enough! Nationwide haven't even asked their adviser what happened at the interview so they can't claim that what the aunt said isn't true.

They cant claim its true or untrue and nor can the aunt. This is why a balance of probability decision would likely be made.

IF it went to court... and NBS cant produce the adviser in person to state that the aunt is incorrect then (IMHO) on balance, the aunt's evidence is more robust.

So, if the aunt accused someone of rape then the court would agree with her because she says so?