Letter from Halifax TMPP Admin

Greg_898

Hi all,
This is my first post so apologies if this is covered elsewhere.
I have just received a letter from Halifax Total Mortgage P P Admin saying they no longer sell PPI and my 'protection' expired on 1st August 2011 - this very week- and advising me to go to a Halifax branch and get an independently produced leaflet for payment protection.

Well the thing is, I didn't know I was paying PPI, I thought my monthly DD was for house insurance and contents - it was taken out on the same day as the mortgage application.
Makes me sound a bit 'thick' but that's what it must be, as confirmed by their letter.
What should I do next? The mortgage was taken out in 2005.
Thanks for any help.
Greg.

roonaldo

you've probably forgotten you had taken it out which doesnt mean its mis-sold.
its up to you, if you still want the cover go and see the branch.

dunstonh

I thought my monthly DD was for house insurance and contents

So, if you thought that was your home insurance, it would indicate that you have no buildings and contents insurance. Isn't that a greater immediate concern?

Are you not surprised why you havent been getting an annual renewal invitation on home insurance?

Makes me sound a bit 'thick' but that's what it must be, as confirmed by their letter.

The Halifax TMPP is a multi-segment policy. It covers life assurance, critical illness, MPPI and also a form of PHI I believe. Halifax have chosen not to offer the MPPI chunk going forward.

What should I do next? The mortgage was taken out in 2005.

I would say getting your home insurance sorted is the most important thing. Apart from that, what else do you want to do?

Greg_898

Thanks for the replies.You are quite right about my priority being house and contents insurance. I will be getting this on Monday.

I have a further question about PPI on behalf of a friend.
She was sold PPI on a Halifax mortgage in 2004. This was a lump sum payout on Life and Critical illness cover.
She states she was told the PPI was compulsory and signed up for it.
She now tells me that having no dependants she would never have signed up for the life part if she had been given a choice, as she has no one to leave her property to.
Does she have a reason to claim against the Halifax for mis-selling?
Any help much appreciated.

dunstonh

She was sold PPI on a Halifax mortgage in 2004. This was a lump sum payout on Life and Critical illness cover.

That is not PPI. That is life assurance and critical illness cover.

She states she was told the PPI was compulsory and signed up for it.
She now tells me that having no dependants she would never have signed up for the life part if she had been given a choice, as she has no one to leave her property to.
Does she have a reason to claim against the Halifax for mis-selling?

her verbal accusation of being told to have it will not succeed without evidence. Anyone can say anything after the event.

However, the life assurance element of the TMPP may be mis-sale. The CI element almost certainly not. She has no need for life assurance (but does for CI). So, if she has no need, she shouldnt have been sold it. There is a caveat to that. Sometimes the cost of adding life assurance to a CI policy is as little as £1. So, often its common sense to add it even if you have no financial dependants at that time.

For reference, financial dependants is not just children but joint mortgage owner or someone she lives with in the same house.

Greg_898

Hi Dunstonh,
Thanks for your reply.
I can tell you that the cost of the Life Cover was 40% of the combined life and CI monthly payments.

My friend -Jenny- was the sole Applicant and she has neither dependants or partner and did not have at the time of taking the mortgage.

As for proof of being told cover was compulsory.
This is pretty high on the list of reasons policies were mis-sold but how do people prove just that?

roonaldo

Halifax's TMPP is not compulsory and documents you were issued state its optional.

dunstonh

As for proof of being told cover was compulsory.
This is pretty high on the list of reasons policies were mis-sold but how do people prove just that?

Its high on the list and many people were told but without evidence, it is a complaint that is unlikely to succeed. However, when someone complains, they have to look at the whole sale and if there is a failure in another area that would make it a mis-sale, then it is upheld for that reason. The single biggest reason for upheld complaints is actually single premium with interest added to it.

If the policy is set up correctly and all documentation is good then a complaint about being told it was compulsory without any evidence to support it is likely to fail. As it should do. Anyone can say anything was said and unfortunately, people do lie. Sometimes be mistake, sometimes on purpose.

I can tell you that the cost of the Life Cover was 40% of the combined life and CI monthly payments.

My friend -Jenny- was the sole Applicant and she has neither dependants or partner and did not have at the time of taking the mortgage.

So, it may have been suitable on the basis of future cost saving. If the documentation says that and its true then it's easy for them to reject the complaint. If its not true, then the life cover cost should be removed and refunded. However, the complaint would also void the policy leaving her uncovered. Your posts suggests she needs the cover now. So, she would have to take a new one out. This would be based on her current age.

Greg_898

Hi Dunstonh,Thanks for your reply.
I am not sure what you mean by the following tho'... So, it may have been suitable on the basis of future cost saving. If the documentation says that and its true then it's easy for them to reject the complaint.

here's some more info:
This was a re-mortgage with only seven years to run on the original mortgage.
Jenny was 32 at the time and in good health. Her parents are still alive and in good health.They are 79 and 77. Her maternal grandparents lived into their mid-eighties, her paternal grandparents lived into their late seventies.
She had only missed 2 days off work thro' illness in the previous 12 years.
Why would she feel a need to take out CI with that kind of family health background?
I now have her policy in front of me and all the parts about her health show she was (and still is) in good health.

There is no reference to the policy being either 'optional' or 'compulsory'. all the paperwork is fine, her only complaint is that she was told it was compulsory.
The cover expired on 31st July this year.

Why are banks making refunds if all they have to say is no one told her it was compulsory?
Thanks for all your help.

dunstonh

I am not sure what you mean by the following tho'... So, it may have been suitable on the basis of future cost saving. If the documentation says that and its true then it's easy for them to reject the complaint.

If the documentation on file says that life assurance was needed when it wasnt then thats a mis-sale. However, if the documentation on file says that life assurance wasnt needed but was taken as it only cost £1.50 pm more than not having it and it was agreed that it was worth having as it may be needed in future then that is not a mis-sale.

Unlike PPI, life assurance & CI with banks is normally done under an advice process. So, they should have a pretty good audit trail showing a needs analysis and reasons why (or statement of demands and needs if more recent).

Why would she feel a need to take out CI with that kind of family health background?

Some of the most healthy people out there are those that suffer critical illnesses. You never know when one will occur. So, none of what you say has any legs in a complaint.

I now have her policy in front of me and all the parts about her health show she was (and still is) in good health.

Which is exactly the time you take them out as its too late when you are not in good health.

There is no reference to the policy being either 'optional' or 'compulsory'. all the paperwork is fine, her only complaint is that she was told it was compulsory.
The cover expired on 31st July this year.

So, a complaint saying she was told she had to have it when nothing backs it up would fail without another valid reason.

Why are banks making refunds if all they have to say is no one told her it was compulsory?

Mostly because they were single premium and charged interest on them or they were not eligible for cover or had no financial need.

Making an accusation against someone is a bit like me going to police and saying you punched me. They would want evidence. I could be making it up or it could really have happened. However, evidence and how that evidence is interpreted is all that matters.

roonaldo

Greg_898 wrote: »

Why are banks making refunds if all they have to say is no one told her it was compulsory?

they are not, they are being upheld for different reasons.

single premiums are mostly upheld as they dont declare the full cost and interest of it when they are sold, they are just usually put on top of loan and not made optional.

monthly premiums are harder to mis-sell, they often on mortgages. a monthly policy that is paid by a seperate direct debit is clearly optional. they will mostly be upheld for suitability reasons.