Need help please?? Mortgage advisor PPI

liverpool1988

Hi,

I took out a mortgage in 1999 and it came for review in 2002 I met my mortgage advisor who advised i take out PPI on my mortgage however it is called life cover, and is with allied dunbar which is part of zurich financial services..

Now i know i never wanted this form of PPI as i remember saying to the advisor that I didnt feel it was necessary as my job was pretty secure and after all it is my choice... he then went on to say its better to have it as its always an option to cancel and to be honest most companies dont accept our appraisals without PPI.

Now since the judicial review i have learnt i never needed this and companies dont base a decision on whether or not that person has ppi or not...

So who do i need to claim from is it the mortgage advisor or allied dunbar?

Really confused on this one and any help would be brilliant...

Cheers guys

Common_Sense_2

you should complain to the person that gave advice / sold the product - however, do you have any proof that you were told this. If not, it's your word against his...

liverpool1988

I have no proof however neither does he?

liverpool1988

although it does give a recommendation in the review letter that i should take it out?

Common_Sense_2

liverpool1988 wrote: »

although it does give a recommendation in the review letter that i should take it out?

That is exactly what it is - a recommendation. Motoring groups recommend that you check your tyre pressures at least once a month - you don't have to. I recommend that you don't bother putting in a complaint, but you don't have to accept my recommendation, you can ignore it and put the complaint in.

To put it into perspective, you are talking about a conversation that took place 9 years ago, most people struggle to remember the exact details of a conversation they had down the pub last saturday night, let alone 9 years ago!

dunstonh

I took out a mortgage in 1999 and it came for review in 2002 I met my mortgage advisor who advised i take out PPI on my mortgage however it is called life cover, and is with allied dunbar which is part of zurich financial services..

1 - that sounds like good advice. most people take out life assurance on a mortgage. Its a common sense thing to do.

2 - Life assurance is not PPI.

Now i know i never wanted this form of PPI as i remember saying to the advisor that I didnt feel it was necessary as my job was pretty secure and after all it is my choice... he then went on to say its better to have it as its always an option to cancel and to be honest most companies dont accept our appraisals without PPI.

You havent been sold PPI and your job status is irrelevant. If you still didnt want it you could have said no. You didnt and you were not forced to have it so no wrong doing there.

Now since the judicial review i have learnt i never needed this and companies dont base a decision on whether or not that person has ppi or not...

You have misunderstood. The review had nothing to do with your complaint. The banks wanted to eliminate a number of people from PPI complaints. They failed. You dont have PPI, you didnt buy from a bank and who says you didnt need life assurance?

although it does give a recommendation in the review letter that i should take it out?

Which is exactly what a correctly sold product should do. It sounds like they have good evidence to counter your unproven accusation (although how you word your accusation in these posts actually proves it wasnt mis-sold without the need to look for documentation). Documentation trumps a verbal unproven accusation.

magpiecottage

liverpool1988 wrote: »

I have no proof however neither does he?

Leaving aside the argument already forwarded by DunstonH that the product recommended, which was not PPI at all, seems to have been needed, there is a principle that "he who asserts must prove".

For financial services complaints that does not mean you have to gather all the evidence yourself because the firm, and if necessary the Financial Ombudsman Service must believe it is more likely than not that the allegation is true.

If you simply make an assertion and the other side denies it then, unless there is evidence to suggest that one party is more likely to be reliable than the other, then both stories are equally likely.

In that instance, the assertion must fail.

liverpool1988

So critical illness cover isnt the same as PPI?

I would never have taken this out as i was covered elsewhere and told the advisor this... so where would I stand?

magpiecottage

liverpool1988 wrote: »

So critical illness cover isnt the same as PPI?

I would never have taken this out as i was covered elsewhere and told the advisor this... so where would I stand?

But you are now changing your story.

First you told us you didn't want the cover because you felt your job was secure. Now, when it is explained that you did not actually have PPI, you say that you told the adviser that you had Critical Illness cover.

Which version are we to believe?

And who provided this Critical Illness cover?

src007

liverpool1988 wrote: »

So critical illness cover isnt the same as PPI?

PPI covers the monthly mortgage payments if you are unable to work because of an accident / sickness / unemployment.

Critical illness will pay a lump sum when you're diagnosed with a very serious condition.

You can argue that you didn't need 'unemployment cover' because you were in a very secure job or 'illness cover' because you had enough savings and employer benefits to see you through a long illness. However you weren't sold those things.

Its very hard to argue that you were never going to have a critical illness or you didn't need life cover.

If you're immortal I think you can safely say it was mis-sold. :rotfl:

Most critical illness policies and life policies are reasonably priced especially when sold alongside mortgages. Even PPI sold alongside mortgages is rarely mis-sold as mortgage payments are often high and so its usually considered a good idea to have it.