mrp reclaim??

robfullwood

Hi all , was after some advice about the possibility of claiming back mortgage repayment protection payments?

Are these the same as PPI payments? as when we took out our first mortgage in 2003 we were under the impression that these were mandatory.

The policy was originally with royal sun alliance , however was changed to Nat West in 2001.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Many thanks
Rob

magpiecottage

robfullwood wrote: »

when we took out our first mortgage in 2003 we were under the impression that these were mandatory.

Erroneously forming an impression is not the same as being missold to.

The policy was originally with royal sun alliance , however was changed to Nat West in 2001.

That is 2 years before you originally took the policy out. Unless the mortgage is on a Police box I am confused.

dunstonh

Are these the same as PPI payments?

Could be. However, it could also be life assurance as some companies have packaged their decreasing term assurance products with mortgage in the name.

as when we took out our first mortgage in 2003 we were under the impression that these were mandatory.

Its largely irrelevant what you think. Its what you can prove that matters. Any accusation by you on this front can be easily rejected when there is no proof.

Mortgage related insurance has very little chance of success with complaints when set up correctly. If its monthly, you are eligible for cover and have a financial need then it is an absolute doddle to reject a complaint where you have no proof to back up a verbal accusation a decade after the event.

robfullwood

magpiecottage wrote: »

Erroneously forming an impression is not the same as being missold to.




That is 2 years before you originally took the policy out. Unless the mortgage is on a Police box I am confused.

sorry , meant 1993 !!

magpiecottage

robfullwood wrote: »

sorry , meant 1993 !!

It could be a mortgage indemnity guarantee - a form of policy you pay for but which protects the lender. A complaint about that will not be upheld.

A 1993 policy would not have been taken out with RSA because Royal and Sun Alliance did not merge until 1996.

However, unless it was sold by an employee of the lender or the insurer it is unlikely that a complaint would fall under FOS jurisdiction and, because the sale took place more than 15 years ago, the intermediary could simply timebar it under Section 14B of the Limitation Act.

A NatWest "own brand" policy may have been missold but it is normally fairly easy to defend because if you lost your job you would have got no state assistance for nine months - by which time you may well have lost your home.

robfullwood

Have checked and the policy was started in 1993 with Sun Alliance

Spoke to Nat West advisor earlier and was told that the policy which was transferred to them in 2001 provides a level of cover each month in the event of an accident etc..

Is this the same as life insurance or an indemnity guarantee?

Considering your previous comments would you suggest not pursuing this any further ?

Thanks for your earlier comments

roonaldo

Yes it is PPI, its MRP is Mortgage Repayments Protector. Its monthly paid by a seperate DD and policy documents shows it can be cancelled at any time so obviously not compulsory.

robfullwood

Im almost certain that a condition of our first mortgage was that we took out a level of protection, which was added to the original mortgage.
I already had a accident/illness policy in place a number of years before we took out the mortgage, which covered a percentage of my wage if unable to work.
I have no paperwork relating to original mortgage from 1993 so wondered if i have a case or not?

Sorry cant provide anymore info
Many thanks in advance for your time and advice.

dunstonh

Im almost certain that a condition of our first mortgage was that we took out a level of protection, which was added to the original mortgage.

When you say added to mortgage, do you mean as a single premium contribution or paid with the monthly mortgage payment? (the former being bad, the latter being good)

Up until the late 90s, lenders could insist on insurance as part of the mortgage. Even today they are still allowed to insist on insurance (more typically seen with self employed/business customers or where there is a mortgage deal where you get a cheaper rate for buying a linked product).

I have no paperwork relating to original mortgage from 1993 so wondered if i have a case or not?

If its monthly then no. Nothing you have said so far suggests any wrong doing or nothing you can prove, assuming your recollection of what was said nearly 20 years ago is correct.

If 20 years ago I said:
an endowment could mature with a surplus

Would you remember it as
an endowment would mature with a surplus or
an endowment could mature with a surplus

How about 20 years ago I said you need this insurance to cover your payments if you are unable to work. Would you remember me saying that you need the insurance as you have a shortfall or would you think that me saying you need it meant you had to have it?

This is why verbal complaints with no evidence usually get rejected. You cannot prove anything and chances are your recollection is duff (that works both ways - if a firm cannot prove something that should be easily proven then doubt falls on them).

The key areas where mortgage protection gets classed as mis-sale are
1 - single premium (it should be paid monthly)
2 - not eligible for cover
3 - no financial need

There is a 4th where some banks for a limited period were automatically upholding all complaints as it was cheaper to do so then investigate each one, hold everyone up and get fined millions by the FSA. Very few complaints will actually get upheld
on the basis "I was told I had to have it".