GE Home Finance - MPPI Court ot Not?

dunstonh

He also mentions in this that if you miss the deadline of 6 months to FOS to start your complaint again. So many on here say you have missed out altogether but I would think after reading this its always worth another shot.

That is a mistake in the article. If you complain, get rejected and are told you go to to the FOS within 6 months then if you fail to do so within the 6 month period, then the FOS will only review the complaint if you have signficant new evidence or damned good reason why you could not refer the complaint to them for the whole period since your rejection. So, the further past the 6 month point you get, the increasingly harder it gets to find a valid reason. Typically things like incapacity to complain are the sort of thing you are looking at.

If you start the complaint again, then the firm can refer you to the response you got on the first complaint the FOS will do the same.

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

That is a mistake in the article. If you complain, get rejected and are told you go to to the FOS within 6 months then if you fail to do so within the 6 month period, then the FOS will only review the complaint if you have signficant new evidence or damned good reason why you could not refer the complaint to them for the whole period since your rejection. So, the further past the 6 month point you get, the increasingly harder it gets to find a valid reason. Typically things like incapacity to complain are the sort of thing you are looking at.

If you start the complaint again, then the firm can refer you to the response you got on the first complaint the FOS will do the same.

I was only quoting what was written in the article. Perhaps you need to put Martin right on that one then?

dunstonh

marshallka wrote: »

I was only quoting what was written in the article. Perhaps you need to put Martin right on that one then?

Here is the definitive link

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/before_we_get_involved_a7.html

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

Here is the definitive link

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/faq/businesses/answers/before_we_get_involved_a7.html

I must have read the old version on this as it was updated in Jan 2011. I used the cached.

ianhillwoodville

Thanks dunstonh. Oh well won't wait six months anyway.

So here we go whether it is a Baldrick plan or indeed a cunning one from the professor of cunning at Oxford University we shall see.

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

A secured loan is any other loan which must be repaid with the proceeds of sale of the property. They are sometimes called second mortgages.


The borrower's position is actually LESS secure because they could find themselves homeless and MPPI is therefore appropriate in principle although clearly adding a single premium to a loan is likely not to be cost effective and purchases need to know what they will and will not be able to claim for in order to make an informed decision whether to pay the premium or take a chance.

So the word "mortgage" is also used in a secured loan? So confusing.


Or check if they are already insured to the maximum with PHI or otherwise and to check terms and conditions of other polices in force. Often people are "over insured or double insured".

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

So the word "mortgage" is also used in a secured loan? So confusing.

Yes - this is a result of the way the language has evolved rather than conspiracy

check if they are already insured to the maximum with PHI or otherwise and to check terms and conditions of other polices in force. Often people are "over insured or double insured".

It is more common for individuals to be underinsured although overinsurance does happen.

There is no requirement for an insurance adviser to check what the customer says is correct, though.

The FSA handbook's section on general insurance advice is less than 250 words long and says nothing about it.

By contrast an IFA has nearly four thousand words just relating to suitability of advice on investments but even then he is entitled to accept what a customer tells him unless it is manifestly untrue.

Buying insurance is not like "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire".

The adviser is not required to ask "Is that your final answer, would you like to ask your employer or read your employment and insurance contracts?"

marshallka

magpiecottage wrote: »

Yes - this is a result of the way the language has evolved rather than conspiracy




It is more common for individuals to be underinsured although overinsurance does happen.

There is no requirement for an insurance adviser to check what the customer says is correct, though.

The FSA handbook's section on general insurance advice is less than 250 words long and says nothing about it.

By contrast an IFA has nearly four thousand words just relating to suitability of advice on investments but even then he is entitled to accept what a customer tells him unless it is manifestly untrue.

Buying insurance is not like "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire".

The adviser is not required to ask "Is that your final answer, would you like to ask your employer or read your employment and insurance contracts?"

Thankyou for your comment magpiecottage but I think you have taken what I said out of context. I was referrring to "the consumer could have other insurance elsewhere" (income protection insurance) and when you have income protection insurance that covers your Mortgage already you cannot claim on both or you "can" but one would no doubt reduce the other. You cannot insure for more than a maximum of 75% of your income. Just a heads up really but if you think otherwise then I would appreciate your view!!!!

Insurance is not like "who wants to be a millionaire"..... you get a 50/50 chance in who wants to be a millionaire. According to the OFT only 20% of claims actually paid out on PPI. MPPI is another form of PPI...!!!

magpiecottage

marshallka wrote: »

Thankyou for your comment magpiecottage but I think you have taken what I said out of context. I was referrring to "the consumer could have other insurance elsewhere" (income protection insurance) and when you have income protection insurance that covers your Mortgage already you cannot claim on both or you "can" but one would no doubt reduce the other. You cannot insure for more than a maximum of 75% of your income. Just a heads up really but if you think otherwise then I would appreciate your view!!!!

It is true that there is a maximum but this is true for most forms of general insurance with the exception of insuring your own life where it is limited by what you can afford and what the insurance market is willing to provide.

However, there is, at least currently, no requirement for a salesperson to investigate what cover is already in place.

Bear in mind, too, that Permanent Health Insurance (Income Protection Insurance) is brilliant if you become too ill to work but provides no help at all if the work is simply not there to do and you
simply lose your job.

You will get no assistance with most loans from the state in those circumstances.

Insurance is not like "who wants to be a millionaire"..... you get a 50/50 chance in who wants to be a millionaire. According to the OFT only 20% of claims actually paid out on PPI.

I was not talking about claim rates, I was talking about answering questions. If a consumer says he is a cucumber, an adviser ought to realise it is nonsense. If he says he has no entitlement to a sick pay, then unless the adviser happens to know the employer and realise it that it is not true, he is entitled to believe it.

MPPI is another form of PPI...!!!

It is indeed - except that if you default on the underlying loan you could find yourself on the street. Until a couple of years ago, the state provided no assistance for nine months, by which time it would probably have been too late.

That is why the Mortgage Code Compliance Board was quite clear that recommending MPPI is generally good advice.

magpiecottage

ianhillwoodville wrote: »

So I cannot go to the FOS on the outcome of my current complaint but might be able to on the handling. Of course it all rather depends on the nature of their response.

I have thought about this before.

The handling of a complaint that falls under the jurisdiction of FOS will undoubtedly itself be something FOS can consider - but would normally need you to reject the firm's response of the main complaint to get FOS to investigate it.

However, if the complaint falls outside of FOS jurisdiction then it can have no say in how that complaint is addressed and it therefore follows that it cannot tell the firm to look at it again by any other means. Indeed, the risk you run in such circumstances is that the complaint about the complaint is deemed frivolous or vexatious - and the firm then seeks to charge you for its time in defending it.

So such an approach is not necessarily without risk to the complainant.