Have I been mis-sold Income Protection Insurance???

Sijax_2

Hello,
I'm after some advice please, any help would be great. I have Income Protection Insurance (IPI), which I was forced to take out to be able to get a loan with Natwest, I really needed the money so had no choice :mad:. The IPI I have is from a company called UNUM. My question is can I make a claim for the mis-selling of this Insurance product? Since reading about PPI I am very upset that I was forced to take this product to get the loan as I now believe this is not the case and I didn't need IPI. I have all of the paperwork from Natwest that was completed to get the IPI. It was taken out in 2003 but I still have it . I refused to take PPI out on subsequent loans as I have this IPI. Can I make a claim against Natwest/Unum or is it wishful thinking?
Thank you for any help

dunstonh

My question is can I make a claim for the mis-selling of this Insurance product?

You can complain about anything you like. The likely success will depend on what evidence you can provide to support your case.

Your biggest problem is going to be that:
a) you dont have loan PPI but have income protection (which is probably PHI). So, you cant claim the normal mis-sale reasons for loan PPI and
b) the income protection is normally done under an advice process by a regulated individual. Unlike PPI. So, there should be a needs analysis and report to support the recommendation.
c) you are likely to have no evidence to support your accusation. So, they will look at suitability and most people have a need for income protection.

It is interesting that the bank used income protection rather than payment protection. That is better option and actually makes any complaint you have harder.

Sijax_2

Thanks Dunstonh for your help. I suppose I don't actually have any evidence that I was forced to take this insurance out and it may seem like a coincidence that I took this out on the same day as I agreed the loan. Ah well....

Thanks again

dunstonh

If it was loan PPI, you would have a much better chance. That requires no evidence and mainly fails due to the way it was set up (single premium). With them doing a monthly premium long term insurance rather than a general insurance PPI that makes it harder. So, you get cases upheld in favour of the individual not because of the reasons they complained about necessarily but because it was set up with interest charged on the PPI (which they may not even have mentioned in the complaint).

You probably were told what you say. Banks are notorious for doing that. However, they rarely document it as that. So, in cases where everything is set up correctly and you have a financial need, they cant rely on what you claim was said when documentation shows otherwise. Documentation is king.