PPI on Mortgage

_Andy_

karloun wrote: »

hi all, needing some advice please. My mortgage was with mortgage lender for 5 years, when the fixed rate ended I shopped around and moved the mortgage to the best deal I could find. Can I claim PPI off the original lender? Will it affect my current mortgage (held elsewhere). Many thanks in advance.

Claim it back for what reason?

roonaldo

karloun wrote: »

hi all, needing some advice please. My mortgage was with mortgage lender for 5 years, when the fixed rate ended I shopped around and moved the mortgage to the best deal I could find. Can I claim PPI off the original lender? Will it affect my current mortgage (held elsewhere). Many thanks in advance.

ppi isnt refundable. you will only get it back if found to be mis-sold to you. What is wrong with having PPI on your mortgage?

Grayb85

Can you reclaim mortgage protection insurance because i got told i had to have it with my mortgage there was no option not to have it so i took it out, this was on my first mortgage in 2002, is it too late to claim if indeed you can? The mppi was through a broker.

dunstonh

What evidence do you have to support your allegation?
is it monthly MPPI or single premium?
How did you buy it? (via lender or broker)?

papahape

Kind of curious to some of the replies about being missold mppi . i have an A+L mortgage from 1997 at the time of setup we were advised we needed the insurance before proceeding with the mortgage , so agreed with bank manager as we were a newly married young couple , then for 6-7 years we paid an extortionate insurance premium every month to A+L before learning that we didnt have to stay with A+L and could shop around for better deals . reading some of the replies on this post I take it that you think the bank did nothing wrong ? Surely proper practice would be to advise us beforehand that we were free to get our own insurance in place even though when we advised of the change in provider A+L got shirty and asked for full proof before they would even cancel the existing one .I welcome any advice or comments on this isssue as I feel we were misinformed ...

dunstonh

then for 6-7 years we paid an extortionate insurance premium every month to A+L before learning that we didnt have to stay with A+L and could shop around for better deals

You dont buy from a bank to get best quality or best price. Price is not grounds for complaint.

reading some of the replies on this post I take it that you think the bank did nothing wrong ?

Nothing you have said indicates they have done anything wrong.

Surely proper practice would be to advise us beforehand that we were free to get our own insurance in place even though when we advised of the change in provider A+L got shirty and asked for full proof before they would even cancel the existing one .

Do you go to Tesco and expect them to tell you to buy from ASDA? There is and never has been any requirement for tied providers to tell you that you can buy from elsewhere.

A&L used to require evidence on insurances and were one of the last to stop.

I welcome any advice or comments on this isssue as I feel we were misinformed ...

Nothing you have suggests you have been misinformed.

papahape

Quote:
then for 6-7 years we paid an extortionate insurance premium every month to A+L before learning that we didnt have to stay with A+L and could shop around for better deals
You dont buy from a bank to get best quality or best price. Price is not grounds for complaint.

As a financial advisor your comment kind of baffles me , when I or anyone else I know of use a bank to borrow it is generally for both of the reasons , ie you borrow at the cheapest rate possible and on the best terms for your needs ..

Quote:
reading some of the replies on this post I take it that you think the bank did nothing wrong ?
Nothing you have said indicates they have done anything wrong.

surely when they say you have to have their insurance before agreeing mortgage ties our hands as a borrower so we have been misinformed??

Quote:
Surely proper practice would be to advise us beforehand that we were free to get our own insurance in place even though when we advised of the change in provider A+L got shirty and asked for full proof before they would even cancel the existing one .
Do you go to Tesco and expect them to tell you to buy from ASDA? There is and never has been any requirement for tied providers to tell you that you can buy from elsewhere.

A&L used to require evidence on insurances and were one of the last to stop.

When I go to tescos it is for shopping and likewise when i go for a mortgage I go to a bank so not relevant in my opinion as this is an insurance problem and not a mortgage problem as we were happy enough with the loan rate on mortgage

Quote:
I welcome any advice or comments on this isssue as I feel we were misinformed ...
Nothing you have suggests you have been misinformed.

Apart from the fact that we were free to seek out our own provider??

dunstonh

As a financial advisor your comment kind of baffles me , when I or anyone else I know of use a bank to borrow it is generally for both of the reasons , ie you borrow at the cheapest rate possible and on the best terms for your needs ..

Then you are mistaken. You do not go direct to bank to buy the best deals. However, you are mixing up insurance with lending. Banks are well known for being expensive on insurance, pensions and investments and typically having poor quality options compared to the whole of market.

surely when they say you have to have their insurance before agreeing mortgage ties our hands as a borrower so we have been misinformed??

Prove it. That is going to be your problem. It is an easy allegation to make as they cant prove they didnt. However, you cant prove they did and the onus is on you to prove it.

When I go to tescos it is for shopping and likewise when i go for a mortgage I go to a bank so not relevant in my opinion as this is an insurance problem and not a mortgage problem as we were happy enough with the loan rate on mortgage

So, you accept that you will get own brand or tied products when you go to a bank. So, therefore you must accept that they will not tell you about others.

Apart from the fact that we were free to seek out our own provider??

Nothing you have said suggests you wanted to do that.

magpiecottage

papahape wrote: »

As a financial advisor your comment kind of baffles me , when I or anyone else I know of use a bank to borrow it is generally for both of the reasons , ie you borrow at the cheapest rate possible and on the best terms for your needs ..

I am afraid that suggests you do not understand the market. A bank is in business for its benefit, not yours.

reading some of the replies on this post I take it that you think the bank did nothing wrong ?

I think "Nothing you have said indicates they have done anything wrong" means just that. It is possible the bank has done wrong but nothing mentioned in the post is outside the rules.

surely when they say you have to have their insurance before agreeing mortgage ties our hands as a borrower so we have been misinformed??

But are we being misinformed by you?

This may sound harsh but there is an old legal principle that he who asserts must prove. You have made the assertion but there is nothing to corroborate it. The balance of probability must be in your favour before a complaint is upheld.

Surely proper practice would be to advise us beforehand that we were free to get our own insurance in place

I have checked the Code of Practice for insurance intermediaries published by the Association of British Insurers - the only code that would have applied to Alliance & Leicester at the time, and it makes no such requirement. Nor did the Mortgage Code or the General Insurance Standards Council's Code. Nor do the current FSA rules for general insurance.

So I disagree with you.

when we advised of the change in provider A+L got shirty and asked for full proof before they would even cancel the existing one

That sounds more like cover was a condition of the mortgage. That is more common for buildings insurance - are you sure you are correct in your recollection?

When I go to tescos it is for shopping and likewise when i go for a mortgage I go to a bank so not relevant in my opinion as this is an insurance problem and not a mortgage problem as we were happy enough with the loan rate on mortgage

I think that was an analogy. However, logically if you go to Tesco for shopping and the bank for a mortgage would it not have followed that you go to an insurance broker for insurance?

Although actually you would probably have done better using a mortgage broker for both (though probably not for tea bags).

papahape

magpiecottage wrote: »

I am afraid that suggests you do not understand the market. A bank is in business for its benefit, not yours.

As a consumer you go to the best business for you ,the best bank offering you the best rates and terms . The fact that the bank is a business is irrelevant to the issue .

I think "Nothing you have said indicates they have done anything wrong" means just that. It is possible the bank has done wrong but nothing mentioned in the post is outside the rules.

But are we being misinformed by you?

Unsure as to what this forum is about , do we come here to decieve other forum members or by disclosing personal experiences and ask for unpatronising advice ??

This may sound harsh but there is an old legal principle that he who asserts must prove. You have made the assertion but there is nothing to corroborate it. The balance of probability must be in your favour before a complaint is upheld.

I have checked the Code of Practice for insurance intermediaries published by the Association of British Insurers - the only code that would have applied to Alliance & Leicester at the time, and it makes no such requirement. Nor did the Mortgage Code or the General Insurance Standards Council's Code. Nor do the current FSA rules for general insurance.

So I disagree with you.

You are disagreeing with the fact that I was misinformed by the bank , paid the monthly premium on their recommendation every month ??

That sounds more like cover was a condition of the mortgage. That is more common for buildings insurance - are you sure you are correct in your recollection?

As you have stated buildings insurance was also part of the mortgage package but it is the MPPI that I have a problem with.

I think that was an analogy. However, logically if you go to Tesco for shopping and the bank for a mortgage would it not have followed that you go to an insurance broker for insurance?

And that is clearly my point

Although actually you would probably have done better using a mortgage broker for both (though probably not for tea bags).

And on that comment what are the code of practice carried forward for bad broker advice can we reclaim then from IFA rather than banks