MPPPI Cover from Hadenglen mortgage advisor

meandbex

Hi all, I was wondering if anyone could shed any light on right to buy mortages and mis sold PPI cover by Hadenglen who i understand no longer trade. I was wondering if i had a case due to following>

Right to buy mortgage with Abbey National and charged 1931 in fees put on top of mortgage for ppi

Remortage in about 2002 with First National and charged 2031 with fees put on mortage for ppi

remortage in about 2006 with GE finance and charged 2031 with fess put on mortgage for ppi.

Also back in about 1998-2002 i had 3 loans with welcome finance and was told i HAD to have ppi in order for loan to take place.

Do i have a case for a claim?

dunstonh

Right to buy mortgage with Abbey National and charged 1931 in fees put on top of mortgage for ppi

It is ok to add fees to the mortgage. Indeed, most people do. However, single premium MPPI is virtually always considered bad advice.

Do i have a case for a claim?

It would be almost certainly considered a mis-sale if the company was still trading. However, a number of your transactions are pre-regulation. Indeed, only one may give you cover. I will leave that to magpiecottage to answer as he knows the time rules on insurance/mortgages better than I.

roonaldo

If they no longer trade then its irelevent if the PPI was taken with First National, GE or Abbey. If you are claiming a PPI mis-sale you complain to the company that sold it/provided you the advice as they are responsible for the sale. You may be able to contact FSCS for the 2006 sale though, as they may be able to help.

You have not stated any reasons why the PPI was unsuitable, so no it is not reclaimable. Insurance is never reclaimable, only refundable wih interest if found to be mis-sold.

Welcome are also bust too and wont come under FSCS jurisdiction for that time period.

magpiecottage

Hadenglen DOES still exist. However, there is a proposal to strike it off and it has been declared in default by the Financial Services Compensation scheme which can help you with the 2006 sale but not the earlier ones.

It is still worth complaining to Welcome Finance about its sales be cause apparently it IS paying redress in respect of complaints about pre 2005 PPI sales but leaving the FSCS to pay later ones.

meandbex

roonaldo wrote: »

If they no longer trade then its irelevent if the PPI was taken with First National, GE or Abbey. If you are claiming a PPI mis-sale you complain to the company that sold it/provided you the advice as they are responsible for the sale. You may be able to contact FSCS for the 2006 sale though, as they may be able to help.

You have not stated any reasons why the PPI was unsuitable, so no it is not reclaimable. Insurance is never reclaimable, only refundable wih interest if found to be mis-sold.

Welcome are also bust too and wont come under FSCS jurisdiction for that time period.

well i just think that i was never given the option to find my own provider, i didnt know i could pay monthly and i was told that ion order for the mortgage to continue i had to have the cover with them........

meandbex

magpiecottage wrote: »

Hadenglen DOES still exist. However, there is a proposal to strike it off and it has been declared in default by the Financial Services Compensation scheme which can help you with the 2006 sale but not the earlier ones.

It is still worth complaining to Welcome Finance about its sales be cause apparently it IS paying redress in respect of complaints about pre 2005 PPI sales but leaving the FSCS to pay later ones.

How do i complain? Do i use a company that specialises in ppi claims?

dunstonh

well i just think that i was never given the option to find my own provider

No grounds for mis-sale there. A tied agent can only recommend their own product. An independent is employed to recommend from the market. So, no mis-sale in either case.

i didnt know i could pay monthly

That is where the wrong doing is.

i was told that ion order for the mortgage to continue i had to have the cover with them........

You wont be able to prove that and very few get upheld on that basis. Its usually another reason (like single premium) that results in an upheld decision.

roonaldo

meandbex wrote: »

well i just think that i was never given the option to find my own provider, i didnt know i could pay monthly and i was told that ion order for the mortgage to continue i had to have the cover with them........

you have read that on another post, its just irrelevant. no adviser is going to discuss products it doesnt sell.

src007

meandbex you might find this interesting if you've not already seen it.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2007/099.shtml

50. The design of the SODAN simply required the sales adviser to identify whether a number of generic statements were applicable to that client's circumstances but did not require the sales adviser to explain the reasons for personally recommending the contract. The advisers also did not make an assessment of the affordability of the PPI contract that resulted in Hadenglen breaching ICOB 4.3.6R. For example, they did not considerwhether funding the PPI contract through single or regular premiums was more suitable.

51. Hadenglen's advisers systematically recommended single premium as they considered it to be beneficial for both the customer and Hadenglen. Hadenglen considered that its customers would be insufficiently disciplined to commit to funding PPI through regular
premium policies and that customers would be tempted to cancel the policy (despite it being in their interests to maintain the policy) if they were required to make monthly payments. Single premium generated higher initial commissions for Hadenglen.

52. In the sample of PPI sales reviewed by the FSA the customer's total debt was increased by between 2% and 4% through the addition of the premium and associated interest.

53. The FSA finds that the sales process adopted in respect of PPI sales had insufficient regard to FSA rules governing such sales and the interests of Hadenglen’s customers. In particular, the FSA finds that Hadenglen was reckless in so far as no apparent consideration was given to the consequences of adopting a PPI sales process that did not require an assessment of suitability. The failings in respect to sales of PPI continued until
November 2006.

src007

meandbex wrote: »

Also back in about 1998-2002 i had 3 loans with welcome finance and was told i HAD to have ppi in order for loan to take place.

Thats bad luck.

Firstly being an (un)Welcome Finance customer is always a painful experience!

Secondly because of the dates of the sale mean that it will be very hard for you to get a refund.

Welcome are still looking at pre-2005 complaints however only for the period that Welcome were covered by an insurance code of conduct (GISC). They didn't sign up to the code until 2003.

src007

Cutting to the chase I think your only realistic chance of a refund is the 2006 GE Money policy that was put on the mortgage (a single premium). This is certainly worth doing!

As Magpiecottage says the Financial Services Compensation scheme can help you with the 2006 sale but not the earlier ones. Have a look on their webste.

http://www.fscs.org.uk

You could call the Financial Ombudsman Service and they could advise you about starting the other complaints against the underwriters of the policies.

However those are tricky and I've never heard of any success going down that route.