mortgage payment protection

cathcath1

Hi, I took out a mortgage with Nationwide in early 1990, It was an endowment and they kept trying to push all the extras and were very persistant. I ended up with buildings insurance and payment protection for disability and unemployment. I told the sales person that i did not need or require payment protection as my circustances were, i received 6 months full pay and six months half pay, at the time i was earning over 45k a year and had a final salary pension which intitled me to early retirement with a lump sum if i was unable to work due to illness etc. The guy i remember kept going on about redundancy and how i would be covered, despite me telling him i would receive a generous package from my employer if this should happen. My aim was always to pay off my mortgage early anyway and i had been saving hard towards that, anyway the guy was so pushy and said that he strongly advised it ect etc, but i honestly did not need or require it. Thinking back i would say i was mis sold it. In 2004 i had saved enough to pay off my mortgage early and Contacted Nationwide for a settlement figure for my mortgage and received a letter from them saying they again strongly advised that i keep the payment protection with them if i purchased a mortgage elsewhere and the freephone number to renew it, i think they would have tried to hard sell it again without even checking our circumstances, i already had told them that i wanted to settle my mortgage account, why would i need it. Incidently, i was made redundant a few months later and received a lump sum that would have covered my mortgage and a new job lined up a couple of weeks later, it proved my point that i would never have claimed on the payment protection anyway. Does anyone think i could claim this back

magpiecottage

cathcath1 wrote: »

I ended up with buildings insurance

That would have been a requirement of the loan - not necessarily through Nationwide but they were not obliged to tell you that unless you explicitly asked.

and payment protection for disability and unemployment.

That may have been a requirement, depending on the deal.

I told the sales person that i did not need or require payment protection as my circustances were, i received 6 months full pay and six months half pay,

That may have been sufficient but can you prove it was true?

at the time i was earning over 45k a year and had a final salary pension which intitled me to early retirement with a lump sum if i was unable to work due to illness etc.

How much would it have paid? It could simply have been the annual accrual rate × years of service and then scaled down because you were younger.

The guy i remember kept going on about redundancy and how i would be covered, despite me telling him i would receive a generous package from my employer if this should happen.

Do you know how much? Even the best redundancy packages tend only to give one month's pay for every year of service. So if you had only been there a couple of years it is unlikely it would have amounted to much.

My aim was always to pay off my mortgage early anyway and i had been saving hard towards that

That wouldn't change the suitability of a monthly premium policy because you could simply discontinue it when the mortgage was cleared.

anyway the guy was so pushy and said that he strongly advised it ect etc, but i honestly did not need or require it. Thinking back i would say i was mis sold it.

From what you are saying, I disagree. In the absence of certain knowledge that your needs were covered elsewhere I think, in the context of the regulations at the time, it was reasonable.

Today's standards may be different but that does not change the fact that the standards as they were then appear to have been complied with.

In 2004 i had saved enough to pay off my mortgage early and Contacted Nationwide for a settlement figure for my mortgage and received a letter from them saying they again strongly advised that i keep the payment protection with them if i purchased a mortgage elsewhere and the freephone number to renew it, i think they would have tried to hard sell it again without even checking our circumstances, i already had told them that i wanted to settle my mortgage account, why would i need it.

That may, or may not have been a suitable recommendation but the fact is that you did not act on it so it is not something you have grounds to complain about.

Incidently, i was made redundant a few months later and received a lump sum that would have covered my mortgage and a new job lined up a couple of weeks later, it proved my point that i would never have claimed on the payment protection anyway.

No it doesn't. It simply proves by 2004 you had built up another 14 years' worth of redundancy entitlement and that you were fortunate enough to get another job quickly - but you had absolutely no means of knowing in advance that you were going to be so lucky.

Does anyone think i could claim this back

Possibly - but nothing you have said suggests to me that you have a reasonable complaint.

cathcath1

Hi, Thanks for the reply, cleared up a few points, many thanks. I was head hunted into the post, it was a General Manager's position, it was a negotiated package and six months full pay and sick months half pay was what i was given as part of the package also the redundancy was the standard accrued one plus a lump sum if it had not worked out. That was what the company offered as i was already in a good job with a good package and that was the offer they made to me.

magpiecottage

cathcath1 wrote: »

I was head hunted into the post, it was a General Manager's position, it was a negotiated package and six months full pay and sick months half pay was what i was given as part of the package also the redundancy was the standard accrued one plus a lump sum if it had not worked out. That was what the company offered as i was already in a good job with a good package and that was the offer they made to me.

That does sound a good package but it also suggests you were a big girl - in the sense that you could stick up for yourself rather than your physical size - and simply refused to do it.

I ran a mortgage desk in 1990 and, from what you say, I doubt you would have had a problem telling them to get stuffed and borrowing elsewhere.