National and Provincial PPI Claim from 1988

SanityCheck

Without knowing the full background facts, it is not possible to comment on the validity of the claim and whether it should succeed, but I will make a few observation.

In order to present a claim, it is not necessary to believe that the claim is good, or that it will succeed. It is only necessary to believe in the truthfulness of the foundations of the claim, eg that you actually had the insurance, you actually made a payment, and that there are some justifications for believing that the insurance was missold. The subsequent investigation of the facts should then clarify whether the claim is good and whether it ought to succeed.

There has been a long standing oblligation for the seller of the prooduct to know your client. This places an obligation on the seller of the product to ascertain the needs of the customer and to assess the suitability of products sold.

The case of people who are self employed is well known, but if you are employed in the professional class and/or by a large company, it may be that your employer provides, as one of the perks of the job, life assurance and critical injury cover. This may be more beneficial than PPI (or whatever it is called in relation to mortgages), and if you had that, then PPI sold ancillary to a mortgage would almost certainly be in appropriate and missold.

You should check with your employer (or trade union if applicable) whether this type of cover was provided to you, as part of your employment package (as part of your trade union benefits)..

foxtrotoscar_2

SanityCheck wrote: »

Without knowing the full background facts, it is not possible to comment on the validity of the claim and whether it should succeed, but I will make a few observation.

In order to present a claim, it is not necessary to believe that the claim is good, or that it will succeed. It is only necessary to believe in the truthfulness of the foundations of the claim, eg that you actually had the insurance, you actually made a payment, and that there are some justifications for believing that the insurance was missold. The subsequent investigation of the facts should then clarify whether the claim is good and whether it ought to succeed.

There has been a long standing obl;igation for the seller of the prooduct to know your client. this places an obligation on the seller of the product to ascertain the needs of the customer and to assess the suitability of products sold.

The case of people who are self employed are well known, but if you are employed in the professional class and/or by a large company, it may be that your emplyer provides as one of the perks of the job life assurance and critical injury cover. This may be more beneficial than PPI (or whatever it is called in relation to mortgages), and if you had that then PPI sold ancillary to a mortgage would almost certainly be in appropriate and missold.

You should check with your employer (or trade union if applicable) whether this type of cover was provided to you as part of your employment package (as part of your trade union benefits)..

Seven year old thread....why resurrect it?

[Deleted User]

SanityCheck wrote: »

Without knowing the full background facts, it is not possible to comment on the validity of the claim

This old thread is originally from 2012, but has been bumped up several times since-the latest in 2014.
Since you didn't quote anyone, it's very difficult to see exactly who you are responding to.

SonOf

In order to present a claim, it is not necessary to believe that the claim is good, or that it will succeed. It is only necessary to believe in the truthfulness of the foundations of the claim, eg that you actually had the insurance, you actually made a payment, and that there are some justifications for believing that the insurance was missold. The subsequent investigation of the facts should then clarify whether the claim is good and whether it ought to succeed.

You are correct in respect of making a complaint.
However, the discussion was about the validity of making a complaint when no complaint reasons were given and it appeared to be an attempt to put in a hit and hope complaint.

As a discussion board, the discussion then took place between the posters as to whether that was right or wrong.

There has been a long standing oblligation for the seller of the prooduct to know your client. This places an obligation on the seller of the product to ascertain the needs of the customer and to assess the suitability of products sold.

January 2005. This case was sold in 1988. Nearly two decades earlier than that requirement. Also, what you describe only applies to advised cases. Not non-advised cases.

The case of people who are self employed is well known, but if you are employed in the professional class and/or by a large company, it may be that your employer provides, as one of the perks of the job, life assurance and critical injury cover. This may be more beneficial than PPI (or whatever it is called in relation to mortgages), and if you had that, then PPI sold ancillary to a mortgage would almost certainly be in appropriate and missold.

That is not correct.

Life assurance/death in service or CIC do not overlap with PPI in any way.
Even the sick pay is not an issue when it comes to MPPI (although often does work with loan and credit card PPI). The FOS has been regularly rejecting MPPI complaints where people have death in service and 12 months sick pay.

Bumping an old thread with inaccurate information does not help people.