Dispute with Countrywide Assured Over Protection Insurance

AndrewJH

Evening guys and girls,

Was looking for a little advice regards a dispute i have ongoing with Countrywide.

Short version is basically i was provided mortgage protection when i took out my mortgage in 2003 basically under the premise that i would have not of got my mortgage deal unless i took this out. It was basically to cover being ill or death insurance and it would have paid off my mortgage.

I sent a claim into Countrywide regards this about 5 weeks ago based upon i thought this protection plan was mis-sold to me as i was told i had to have it to procure my mortgage deal. I've just received a reply off of them stating whilst it's not technically PPI they still refuse my claim and claim that the mortgage broker at the time basically was covering my needs. Now i'm pretty sure it's not good practise to basically sell a policy on the basis you would not have gotten the mortgage unless you took it out!

The advice i am after really is what to do here as it sounds very much like they don't think i have a case at all. Would it be a good idea to email them and dispute their findings or is it worth sending off to the FSA?

This is the first response i've had regards my PPI / claims and am a little unsure on what to do next.

Thanks in advance

Andrew.

di3004

Hi Andrew

Dunstonh or Magpiecottage will know more about this one and I'm sure one of them at least will post up with some advice for you sometime later.

Good luck.

magpiecottage

This sounds like a life and critical illness policy, so they are correct to say it is not PPI.

It is possible your lender did insist on life cover - although it is less common for this to be required than it once was.

However, it is also possible that you were told that you "must" have cover in the sense that it was "essential" rather than "compulsory".

The analogy I use is a brand new car. You must have third party cover because it is the law. You "must" have own damage car because you could not afford to replace it if you pranged it.

You MAY be able to argue that you did not need life cover (if you were single and had no dependants) but following a critical illness you would still need somewhere to live so that would be difficult to get upheld. Given that part of the premium will be a flat rate cost, paid whether you include life cover or not, and that the majority of the premium cost will be the critical illness (because you are far more likely to claim for that than death), the difference is likely to be small.