Mortgage Payment Protection Insurance

stitcherooni

Thanks for your quick reply. In a case of our word versus theirs, I suppose there isn't much we can prove.

Did you not tell them your work benefits?

They didn't ask. We were young, naive and not as financially aware as we are now.

Am I addressing the complaint to the right company though or should it be the insurer?

dunstonh

stitcherooni wrote: »

Thanks for your quick reply. In a case of our word versus theirs, I suppose there isn't much we can prove.



They didn't ask. We were young, naive and not as financially aware as we are now.

Am I addressing the complaint to the right company though or should it be the insurer?

Its the seller that you complain to. The insurer has no liability unless the seller is an agent of the insurer.

Single premium is the key thing here. I dont know if the FOS will end up looking at it or not but if they do, you would expect them to uphold the complaint.

marshallka

stitcherooni wrote: »

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?

Don't know if this helps

Can my customers refer complaints to the Financial Ombudsman Service after 31 October 2004 about my firm’s activities before that date?

The Treasury has made a special order dealing with complaints arising after 31 October 2004 (the start of FSA regulation of mortgage broking) about the activities of a mortgage broker before regulation began. This is the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Transitional Provisions) (Complaints Relating to General Insurance and Mortgages) Order 2004.


This order means that the Financial Ombudsman Service can look at such complaints if:

1. they are about the activities of an authorised firm that is a former member of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB); and
2. the complaint would previously have been considered under the Mortgage Code Arbitration Scheme.

If you satisfy these conditions and you are an authorised firm, the FOS will be able to deal with complaints about your pre 31 October mortgage activities.
Similar arrangements apply for general insurance brokers. The FOS can deal with complaints about the general insurance-related activities of a broker before 14 January 2005 (the start of FSA general insurance regulation). This is provided the complaints relate to an authorised firm that is a former member of the General Insurance Standards Council (GISC) and the complaint would previously have been considered by GISC's dispute resolution facility.
You should note that the FOS will consider such complaints with reference to the rules and regulations that applied at the relevant time i.e. the Mortgage Code for complaints about pre 31 October 2004 mortgage activity and the GISC rules for complaints about general insurance-related activity before 14 January 2005

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/smallfirms/resources/faqs/complaints_sourcebook.shtml

stitcherooni

Thanks for your replies. I'll wait and see what the outcome of the complaint to the FOS is then.

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

This order means that the Financial Ombudsman Service can look at such complaints if:

1. they are about the activities of an authorised firm that is a former member of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB); and
2. the complaint would previously have been considered under the Mortgage Code Arbitration Scheme.

This is not entirely true.

The order was written so that if a firm subscribed to the Mortgage Code but was never directly authorised by the FSA, FOS has no jurisdiction. This was specifically done to ensure that the principal (the firm taking responsibility for an Appointed Representative's compliance) did not inadvertently end up liable for something over which it never had any control.

Looking at the FSA's register, Carrington Carr only appears as an Appointed Representative of Legal & General and only from 2 November 2004.

Therefore, whilst you seem to have been stitched up, I am afraid that I don't think FOS can help you.

The FSA took over the regulation of

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

This is not entirely true.

The order was written so that if a firm subscribed to the Mortgage Code but was never directly authorised by the FSA, FOS has no jurisdiction. This was specifically done to ensure that the principal (the firm taking responsibility for an Appointed Representative's compliance) did not inadvertently end up liable for something over which it never had any control.

Looking at the FSA's register, Carrington Carr only appears as an Appointed Representative of Legal & General and only from 2 November 2004.

Therefore, whilst you seem to have been stitched up, I am afraid that I don't think FOS can help you.

The FSA took over the regulation of

You had better tell them that then!!

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

This order means that the Financial Ombudsman Service can look at such complaints if:

1. they are about the activities of an authorised firm that is a former member of the Mortgage Code Compliance Board (MCCB); and
2. the complaint would previously have been considered under the Mortgage Code Arbitration Scheme.

This is not entirely true.

FSA Rule DISP 2.3.2G says:

"The Ombudsman can also consider under the Compulsory Jurisdiction …. as a result of the Mortgages and General Insurance Complaints Transitional Order, a relevant transitional complaint that relates to an act or omission by a firm (or an unauthorised person that ceased to be a firm after the relevant commencement date) which was subject to a former scheme at the time of the act or omission;"

"Firm", in this context means an "authorised person", which in turn means a business (sole trader, partnership or limited company) that is authorised by the FSA. An unauthorised person is a similar business that was authorised by the FSA but is not now.

Carrington Carr Home Finance Limited was never authorised by the FSA. It has only ever been an appointed representative of Legal & General (according to the FSA's website).

Therefore, whilst you seem to have been stitched up, I am afraid that I don't think FOS can consider the complaint.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

This is not entirely true


Therefore, whilst you seem to have been stitched up, I am afraid that I don't think FOS can consider the complaint.

I think the person with the complaint has it in order already and good luck to them I say.