Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance

dunstonh

I have been finding out a lot more from my employers ( LARGE MULTI NATIONAL PHARMACUETICAL COMPANY ) and it appears that if i was unable to return to work due to a serious / critical illness i had 28wks full pay not 24wks then 24 wks half pay then the company PHI would have kicked in.

You have a strong case then. You had no financial need for a "ASU" policy as the "AS" bit (accident, sickness) would never have paid out.

Also on redundancy as my employers were a top 10 in the world Pharmacuetical manufacturer the packages were excellent ie due to my service (started 1985 ) would have been at least 1 years salary and in 1998 = £41,900 and in 2003 it would have been 18months = £73,500

I know what you are saying but do you think the staff at Lehmans thought any differently to you? Or polly peck or other major failure over the years.

The question is a simple one. Do you have a financial need for it. For unemployment cover, despite the low risk, there was still a risk and therefore the answer is yes.

However, that point is a non-issue now. The fact you had a PHI to kick in after the sick pay trumps the rest and is all you need as that shows you did not have a financial need for that product.

Harry_the_dog

Cheers and thanks for your input.

Harry

growler8936

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont accept the initial rejection when it comes to single premium MPPI. Take it to the FOS as they will nearly always uphold the complaint.

It doesnt matter if you were told about it and accepted it. If the advice is bad to begin with then that is the problem. The FOS uphold complaints on single premium MPPI in over 90% of cases.

Their reason is rubbish anyway. By paying for 6 years worth, you borrowed that money and paid interest on it. Your monthly payment to cover that borrowing would probably be the same or higher than a monthly premium MPPI.

Thanks Dunstonh. So is the next step to write back to CC to say that I do not accept their decision and will be taking the claim to the FOS? If so what is the proceedure with the FOS?

Your help appreciated as always guys.

Applecider_2

dunstonh wrote: »

If the insurances were paid monthly and you had a financial need then there is little chance of winning. (i.e. life assurance is right to have if you have financial dependents). If the insurances were single premium then that is bad (in the case of mortgages and loans). Then you should complain. The complaint is to Countrywide though. Not the lender.

Wat does single premium mean? I have no children we both had good jobs etc. They said we needed them to get the morgage and I remember a girl telling me in the office who i was in school with that they got bonus's for selling it to people!

marshallka

Applecider wrote: »

Wat does single premium mean? I have no children we both had good jobs etc. They said we needed them to get the morgage and I remember a girl telling me in the office who i was in school with that they got bonus's for selling it to people!

A single premium is actually a loan to pay for your insurance in a lump sum...

dunstonh

I have no children we both had good jobs etc.

You say "we". So, a joint mortgage would nearly always have joint life assurance on it.

Applecider_2

Thanks for ur replies. TBH I have no idea I only have the paperwork for the morgage not the stuff tha went with it. plus I have no idea Single premium or paying every month.

dunstonh

Applecider wrote: »

Thanks for ur replies. TBH I have no idea I only have the paperwork for the morgage not the stuff tha went with it. plus I have no idea Single premium or paying every month.

Any insurances set up should be deducted from the current account. Not the mortgage. So, if you are paying insurances then that is the place to look.

If the insurance premium was paid as a single premium (which is bad and something you can complain about as it should be monthly) then the amount you borrowed would be higher than you asked for. If its not higher, then it would not be single premium.

stitcherooni

Need some advice. We were also mis-sold MPPI (ASU) with the typical carrington Carr hard sell back in 2003 / 2004. We contend it was mis-sold for the following reasons:

· Your staff led us to believe that taking out a policy would improve our chances of a successful mortgage application.
· Your staff did not offer us a clear choice of the mortgage with and the mortgage without insurance.
· Your staff did not give us an illustration showing the repayments with and without insurance.
· Your staff painted a scenario where we would be reliant on the insurance which would not have been true for us. Your member of staff never asked us if our employers provided a generous illness and redundancy package which they did.
· Your staff subjected us to high pressure intimidating sales tactics. When we said we wanted more time to think things over and would like him to return after we had thought things through, we were informed that “this is a once in a life-time opportunity and I won’t be coming back”. It was a case of now or never.
· Your staff did not fully explain the policy and its exclusions to us.
· It was a single premium PPI that could have been done monthly.
· The single premium was added to the mortgage creating an additional debt that will take the whole term of the mortgage to repay and not just the first 6 years premium.

2 weeks after our mortgage completed in Jan 2004 we wrote to Carrington Carr at the same address as Adminicle Limited in Cirencester to cancel the MPPI. We were again given the hard sell and they reduced the premium by £1500 but still convinced us to keep the policy.

I have had a knockback from Carrington Carr who dismissed my "vexatious" complaint outright, saying that they were unregulated back then. I have called the FOS who reiterated Carrington Carr's stance that they weren't regulated by the GISC back then but they were members of the MCCB (Mortgage Code Compliance Board). They did ask me to submit a full complaint in writing though (which I have just done) so am awaiting the results of their investigations.

The question is, who should I being pursuing in this instance and what are my chances? Seems that wherever I look the FOS can't do anything pre-2005. Is County Court the only way to go?

dunstonh

·Your staff led us to believe that taking out a policy would improve our chances of a successful mortgage application.

Can you prove it? If not, this point is irrelevant.

·Your staff did not offer us a clear choice of the mortgage with and the mortgage without insurance.

Don't understand that as the mortgage and MPPI are two different things (unless it happens to be a deal that insisted on MPPI).

Your staff did not give us an illustration showing the repayments with and without insurance.

There is no such thing.

Your staff painted a scenario where we would be reliant on the insurance which would not have been true for us. Your member of staff never asked us if our employers provided a generous illness and redundancy package which they did.

The DWP pay benefits on the basis that people are insured. It is considered best advice to be insured. You saying they didnt consider work benefits can you prove you didnt have a financial need for it? Did you not tell them your work benefits?

Your staff subjected us to high pressure intimidating sales tactics. When we said we wanted more time to think things over and would like him to return after we had thought things through, we were informed that “this is a once in a life-time opportunity and I won’t be coming back”. It was a case of now or never.

Can you prove that?

·Your staff did not fully explain the policy and its exclusions to us

They would have issued a key facts document that lists key things. That is all that is required.

·It was a single premium PPI that could have been done monthly.
·The single premium was added to the mortgage creating an additional debt that will take the whole term of the mortgage to repay and not just the first 6 years premium.

This is the key point and the only one with any real legs unless you can prove any of the others. Single premium is bad. You dont need any other argument.

The question is, who should I being pursuing in this instance and what are my chances? Seems that wherever I look the FOS can't do anything pre-2005. Is County Court the only way to go?

Whilst FSA and FOS consider single premium bad, the courts dont seem to be. Even the likes of Black Horse have been successful in the courts whereas the FOS have a 99% uphold rate with them. The courts use a different criteria. You have to show misrepresentation or laws being broken and are expected to be able to prove it. Single premium, whilst bad, doesnt break any written rules or laws.