Can I claim PPI on mortgage?

tropicaltopaz

dunstonh wrote: »

You have not stated your reasons for complaint. So, we cant say if you should make a complaint or not.

The reason is that neither of us remember agreeing to the payments, and that we didn't need it due to hubby being covered at work.

But also I was unsure about the premiums for ASU/Redundancy cover being added each year and payments spread out over the year, it was added on to the mortgage payment. Someone on the main PPI forum said that may or may not be an issue.

dunstonh

The reason is that neither of us remember agreeing to the payments, and that we didn't need it due to hubby being covered at work.

Work overlap is a potential complaint reason. If your husband gets 6 months full, 6 months half pay then that is significant overlap and a fairly easy complaint. If its 3 months sick pay then there is virtually no overlap and not a valid complaint.

Your recollection of events is unprovable. So, a very weak complaint reason and relies on a failing elsewhere to succeed.

But also I was unsure about the premiums for ASU/Redundancy cover being added each year and payments spread out over the year, it was added on to the mortgage payment. Someone on the main PPI forum said that may or may not be an issue.

MPPI is bad when it is set up as a single payment up front and added to the debt. Regular premiums is how it should be set up. So, this confirms your is set up correctly and that reason is not a complaint reason. Some lenders did collect the premium with the mortgage (as they could with house insurance as well). However, that is acceptable and allowed. The lenders that did this typically used a non-interest charging sub account to handle these through so it cost no more than doing it standalone by direct debit.

tropicaltopaz

Thanks dunstonh
He gets 6 months full and 6 months half pay, but because it was regular premiums does that mean we shouldn't apply?

dunstonh

tropicaltopaz wrote: »

Thanks dunstonh
He gets 6 months full and 6 months half pay, but because it was regular premiums does that mean we shouldn't apply?

regular premiums means it is set up correctly so no complaint there. However, 6 months full, 6 months half means there was significant overlap and it wasnt needed. So, if it was an advised case, a complaint should be made.

roonaldo

from what i remember, some Halifax mppi policies could pay out for up to 24 months, significantly more than 6 months full sick pay. most were just up to 12 months.

tropicaltopaz

dunstonh wrote: »

regular premiums means it is set up correctly so no complaint there. However, 6 months full, 6 months half means there was significant overlap and it wasnt needed. So, if it was an advised case, a complaint should be made.

Thanks, I'll give it a go then.

foxy-lady

We are making a claim against Barclays for a policy that we believe was mis-sold. This dates way back to 1999. My husband is one of 4 taxi drivers who clubbed together to buy the taxi business from the owner who was going to sell it to a competing firm. They continued to rent the taxi base from the previous owner for a few months but then decided to buy the building from him too.
The mortgage was for 20k repayable over 3 years.
*Life cover was a condition of lending. I understand that this is not a reason for a miss sell claim. However they were given a life insurance policy for 30k EACH over 5 years as this was the minimum they would do?? They were paying premiums for 120k of life cover for a 20k mortgage- is that right?
*One of the 4 partners was not a borrower on the mortgage because of bad credit history but he was still made to have the life & cic policy???
*On the fact-find questionnaire one of the questions asks if they are interested in critical illness cover. If not now then review in 6m or 12m. They said 'NO' to this but the policy sold to them was some sort of business protection plan that included critical illness cover.


These are the reasons that we have used for the claim. I would welcome anyones opinion on our chances. I will update when we hear anything back xx

dunstonh

*Life cover was a condition of lending. I understand that this is not a reason for a miss sell claim. However they were given a life insurance policy for 30k EACH over 5 years as this was the minimum they would do?? They were paying premiums for 120k of life cover for a 20k mortgage- is that right?

Yes that is allowed and actually not uncommon. Young people are another group that often find minimum premium gives them more than they need. A product constraint by a tied agent is not a mis-sale reason.

*One of the 4 partners was not a borrower on the mortgage because of bad credit history but he was still made to have the life & cic policy???

No problem with that. Indeed, common sense

*On the fact-find questionnaire one of the questions asks if they are interested in critical illness cover. If not now then review in 6m or 12m. They said 'NO' to this but the policy sold to them was some sort of business protection plan that included critical illness cover.

The cost of life and CI is often virtually no different to life only. Sometimes under a pound a difference. So, whilst the initial intention was not to include it, by the time it was quoted and compared with pure life, that decision may have changed. It frequently does.

These are the reasons that we have used for the claim. I would welcome anyones opinion on our chances. I will update when we hear anything back xx

Very weak reasons and very easily defendable if the bank chooses to do so and assuming they still have the documentation.

magpiecottage

foxy-lady wrote: »

We are making a claim against Barclays for a policy that we believe was mis-sold. This dates way back to 1999. My husband is one of 4 taxi drivers who clubbed together to buy the taxi business from the owner who was going to sell it to a competing firm. They continued to rent the taxi base from the previous owner for a few months but then decided to buy the building from him too.
The mortgage was for 20k repayable over 3 years.
*Life cover was a condition of lending. I understand that this is not a reason for a miss sell claim. However they were given a life insurance policy for 30k EACH over 5 years as this was the minimum they would do?? They were paying premiums for 120k of life cover for a 20k mortgage- is that right?
*One of the 4 partners was not a borrower on the mortgage because of bad credit history but he was still made to have the life & cic policy???
*On the fact-find questionnaire one of the questions asks if they are interested in critical illness cover. If not now then review in 6m or 12m. They said 'NO' to this but the policy sold to them was some sort of business protection plan that included critical illness cover.


These are the reasons that we have used for the claim. I would welcome anyones opinion on our chances. I will update when we hear anything back xx

A lender can impose whatever conditions it chooses. That is a matter of commercial judgement.

There can be all sorts of ramifications to a business if a partner dies unexpectedly which could jeopardise the repayment of its debts so a prudent lender would seem wise.

So I do not think you have a case.

anney63

I am helping a friend . I have claimed on his TMPP payment insurance and won but when Halifax sent the letter they up held the TMPP part and not the individual PPI I got confused and looking at paperwork thought the monthly payment for PPI was part of the TMPP This was not the case and they have sent a refusal for the other signed on the same day which seems ludicrous . I am now appealing their decision . Their reasons are all assumptions but how can they uphold one and refuse the other sold at the same time on the same day