PPI on a mortgage?

dunstonh

They forced me to use Choice Mortgages as a mortgage broker and to take PPI as a condition of the sale.

What evidence do you have to support that accusation?

If the MPPI is set up correctly and you are eligible for cover and if you have no evidence then you complaint will be rejected.

susi

Ok thanks, will do that

blueelephanttrunk

I'm in the same situation, we got a mortgage 5 years ago through Northern Rock but through an advisor in an estate agency who also traded under Legal and General. We were told we had to have PPI so took it out - ours was provided by BNP Cardiff Pinnicle. I have requested my original aggreement from Pinnacle, have I asked the wrong people? I also stopped paying the PPI about 6 months ago.

dunstonh

I have requested my original aggreement from Pinnacle, have I asked the wrong people?

Yes. The insurer has no liability for the advice given.

The mortgage adviser is liable for the advice they give. By using a tied sales rep of L&G rather than an independent, then L&G are responsible for the advice given.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

What evidence do you have to support that accusation?

If the MPPI is set up correctly and you are eligible for cover and if you have no evidence then you complaint will be rejected.

Perhaps they worked hand in hand for commissions which then means that the estate agent was not really looking at the consumers best interests and more to the comission element.

Surely the same applies as PPI with MPPI. It can still missold if made conditional when it was not conditional. FOS will look at the complaints won't they if they reject them?

blueelephanttrunk

Oh dear! I know that person is still a mortgage advisor, so will I need to address my letters to him or Legal and General direct?

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes. The insurer has no liability for the advice given.

But FOS are accepting misselling complaints against insurers and trying to make them responsible for their agents misselling. I think there will be a time very soon when insurers will have liablility.

dunstonh

Perhaps they worked hand in hand for commissions which then means that the estate agent was not really looking at the consumers best interests and more to the comission element.

You would be naive to think otherwise. The tied sale agent doesnt get access to estate agent clients for nothing.

Surely the same applies as PPI with MPPI. It can still missold if made conditional when it was not conditional. FOS will look at the complaints won't they if they reject them?

L&G sales reps use the commission from the insurance to pay their fees or give the chance for the person to pay the fee directly. It is quite acceptable to do that. So, if the L&G rep positioned things correctly and the MPPI was set up correctly (monthly and with a financial need existing) then its a pretty easy complaint for them to reject.

But FOS are accepting misselling complaints against insurers and trying to make them responsible for their agents misselling.

You are mixing up different types of transaction. An adviser is liable for the advice they give. Not the insurer they place the business with. That is unless the adviser is an agent of the insurer.

I think there will be a time very soon when insurers will have liablility.

That wouldnt be logical though and would almost certainly require new legislation and there appears to be no reason for it. It wouldn't achieve anything.

Oh dear! I know that person is still a mortgage advisor, so will I need to address my letters to him or Legal and General direct?

You can address it to the mortgage adviser who will send it on to their compliance dept or you can send it direct to the compliance department yourself (address is on the terms of business issued at first contact).

Remember that advised MPPI plans are more likely to be contested as they should have all the documentation necessary to support the recommendation. Its not like loan and credit card. Its pretty easy to tell if an MPPI is likely to be classed as mis-sold or not (single premium and added to mortgage, not eligible for cover or no financial need for it being the key things). What is your reason for complaint?

Remember that you are likely to be blacklisting yourself from using that agent again if you are just trying it on. They are not going to want to deal with you again in future. So, if you have a genuine complaint then fair enough, go for it. However, if you do not have a genuine complaint then remember that unlike loan & credit card PPI, you are putting in a complaint against an individual, not a firm, and that individual will carry it on their file. You are potentially affecting their employment status and career as well as their pocket.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

You are mixing up different types of transaction. An adviser is liable for the advice they give. Not the insurer they place the business with. That is unless the adviser is an agent of the insurer.


That wouldnt be logical though and would almost certainly require new legislation and there appears to be no reason for it. It wouldn't achieve anything.


Remember that you are likely to be blacklisting yourself from using that agent again if you are just trying it on. They are not going to want to deal with you again in future. So, if you have a genuine complaint then fair enough, go for it. However, if you do not have a genuine complaint then remember that unlike loan & credit card PPI, you are putting in a complaint against an individual, not a firm, and that individual will carry it on their file. You are potentially affecting their employment status and career as well as their pocket.

I am not mixing the two up. The FOS are telling people to make their "missale" complaint against an insurer where a broker was unregulated or gone into administration. Also the FSCS is thinking along the same lines.

I have read somewhere where old legalisation says

The Association of British Insurers (ABI) has made it clear to Insurance Age that they see no moral responsibility for their members to control or influence how their products are sold. A spokeswoman for the organisation said: "It's the regulator's job to ensure the firms that are selling the products are compliant and, obviously, insurance companies are not responsible for regulating agents."
However, a quick check of the FSA rulebook seems to contradict this. It points out to providers that when selecting distribution channels, principles two, six and seven are "particularly relevant":
• in particular, a firm should decide whether it is a product where customers would be wise to seek advice;
• should review how what is occurring in practice corresponds to what was originally planned or envisaged for the distribution of its products or services given the target market. This involves collecting and analysing appropriate management information such that the firm can detect patterns in distribution as compared with the planned target market, and can assess the performance of the distribution channels through which its products or services are being distributed;
• should act when it has concerns, for example by ceasing to use a particular distribution channel.
It would seem clear that, judging by the level of complaints that PPI has generated, the majority of insurers did not comply with the above. One insurer that was willing to give its views on this was Axa. Claims director at the insurer, David Williams, openly admits that insurers have a responsibility for the way their products are sold contradicting the ABI's rigid approach. In order to protect itself from the worst exposures of PPI, Axa has taken the claims-handling process in-house, which allows it to better track what is going on at the point of distribution and identify any worrying trends.

Typed from insurance age!!!


Blimey dunstonh, you are scary to the poster here by saying about getting blacklisted. If a consumer feels they have a complaint whether it be proved or not it should not be looked at as a try it on. People have a right to complain. And to TBH, would you want to use an agent again who you suspected was not working in your interests?

dunstonh

I am not mixing the two up. The FOS are telling people to make their "missale" complaint against an insurer where a broker was unregulated or gone into administration. Also the FSCS is thinking along the same lines.

Not in cases sold via an adviser. That is about where the person was acting as an agent. An adviser is a regulated indivdiual or the company they work for is a regulated advice firm.

Blimey dunstonh, you are scary to the poster here by saying about getting blacklisted. If a consumer feels they have a complaint whether it be proved or not it should not be looked at as a try it on. People have a right to complain. And to TBH, would you want to use an agent again who you suspected was not working in your interests?

Its not scary. If the person has been mis-sold then they should rightfully complain. However, its also only fair that they are aware that if there were not mis-sold and are trying it on that, unlike loan and credit card PPI, that with mortgage PPI sold under advice (and not via a bank clerk) it can see the adviser hit with the consequences. One of which could be loss of employment or being prevented from moving employer or even bankruptcy.

And to TBH, would you want to use an agent again who you suspected was not working in your interests?

You tell me. I didnt suggest anything like that.