MSE News: Guest Comment: PPI was mis-sold but isn't bad

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Just having the product isnt reason for complaint. I dont actually know what the complaint uphold rate for those is. However, i do know that my compliance company are rejecting PPi complaints if its paid monthly, the person was eligible and had a financial need. However, remember that these are advisers. So, MPPI would be the product in question there. Not loan or credit card.



Data has to be placed in context. There are around 30,000 IFAs (its thought somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 are active. There are millions of transactions placed through IFAs each year. Yet IFAs have little over 3,000 complaints with the FOS last year. The FOS themselves admit that a good chunk of those relate to a one firm and it was over their handling or a purchase of a business which got messy and is in fact has part of it in the high court at the moment. So, do you look at those 3,000 complaints and say that its evidence of mis-sales (especially as that isnt the upheld number but just the complaint number).



The product was put in place whilst I was at school. The complaint came in obviously many years later. I am well under the average age for an IFA. I was more pleased when I had no complaints at all. The first two have long dropped off and one wasnt even classed as a complaint. The last one really hit me hard. I couldn't work effectively for a month. I was second guessing myself as to what i was doing right or wrong whilst the complaint was being looked at. I couldn't sleep at night It was better when it was rejected but it was not an experience you want to have. This is what those making try-it-on complaints don't realise. If its a faceless firm, it isnt really affecting anyone personally. If its a small firm then it is. That complaint still has to be disclosed on my PI cover and even though it was rejected, my premiums are higher.

Sometimes those that post a balancing view and point out obvious try-it-ons are targeted on these boards as being anti-consumer.

In the last few days, there have been some harsh posts made against "possible" try-it-ons that may be genuine. However, there are also other threads that have had people post that they should still complain even where there is no wrongdoing.

I prefer to stick with the balance. If its wrong, complain. If you are trying it on then sod off.

No complaints at all would make you perfect..... do you actually believe that anyone is perfect dunstonh. Everyone makes mistakes don't they, even doctors, MP's etc.... everyone. You would not fit into this world would you if you were perfect.

There has been some harsh posts on here the last few days. I realise that some ARE going to be more biased to the consumer and some are going to be more biased to firms selling insurance... its the way the cookie crumbles.

Its not really up to anyone on here to judge who has been missold and who has not though. Some posts are obviously not missales but with all the media attention and what Martin says about things like "self employed" and you have been missold etc there is not wonder people start to think they are missing out on something that they could reclaim. Media attention does not help some but for others who have been missold it does. My relative had a letter from A and L (being 70 at the time and was not in employment and not eligible to claim) saying that there could have been a problem with the sale of her PPI. She called me and mentioned this in passing and said to me that there was definately no problem because she did not have any insurance.

I rang A and L for her and low and behold, she had been sold single premium PPI bundled into the loan. It was an easy complaint and they refunded it but she really had no idea of ever having PPI added to the loan and trused that the bank had acted in her best interest. She was even feeling guilty at having it back too. (that is the way she is!!). She was glad of the money but not glad she had joined the "claim gang" but should she have let it go? She lost sleep over having money repaid to her......

There are most probably posters on here posting from Claims companies and you never really know who you are helping do you? I once thought about that one in that some are doing lots of work helping someone to reclaim their missold PPI and someone else is actually getting paid for it!!!

Like I say, anyone can post and unless you know the person personally then you have no idea who they really are or of their "background" information either. We all know that is a risk you take when listening to information from sites like this one.

There was a post the other day whereby a "policeman" (not a try it onner like myself!!) had bought MPPI and they said that in their terms and conditions (which they had read thoroughly BECAUSE OF ALL THE SUCESS'S OF RECLAIMING!! no mention of reading them before!!) it said about being in a job that was putting themselves in danger? They mentioned their mortgage and MPPI was 7 years old.....(prior to regulations most likely)

You did say to ring the insurer and ask.......

i asked

"What would happen if the insurer said it would not cover the OP? Would the OP then be missold OR would it be that they had the opportunity to read and understand the terms and conditions and decide for themselves?

You replied

"If the policy was not fit for purpose as it didnt offer the cover that the person said it would then its a mis-sale".
... you said if it was sold without advice then the advisor still had a duty of care. It also looked like a pay monthly MPPI and was sold over the phone from what the poster said.


This was a little shocking here dunstonh as the poster had not said he was "advised" to have the MPPI or that it was missold, only that they did not know if they were covered. He could have just been sent the forms out for the Mortgage and included in this was the MPPI for them to read the terms and conditions.....

They had said

"Also, this was arranged in the full knowledge that I was a police officer."

Just because someone is a police officer generally they are not working on front lines are they? Why was it that poster got more of a favourable response on their post than most? Just because this person is police officer then that does not mean that they were automatically sold the PPI with advice does it? Just knowing someone is a policeman does not mean that they are immune from reading terms and conditions?


Ordinarily you would say it would be up to the consumer to read the terms and conditons and it would their fault for buying something that was not fit for purpose.

Can you please explain why this post was more likely a missale if the person was not covered than most?