Mortgage Brokers and PPI

Richie1

Im new on here and just want a little advice.

I took out Payment Protection Insurance in 2005 when I took out a mortgage. Both the mortgage and the PPI were arranged by a broker attached to the estate agent we purchased from.

Subsequently I have put a claim in against the actual insurer rather than the broker.

The insurer in question, Paymentshield Ltd, has subsequently written back to me saying my claim is with the broker and not Paymentshield as it was the broker that asked the questions?

Is that correct?

My opinion is that the claim is with Paymentshield as they would have stated what to ask and would have screened my application. Also I paid the monthly direct debit to Paymentshield NOT the broker?

Any advice or thoughts would be greatly appreciated?

dunstonh

Subsequently I have put a claim in against the actual insurer rather than the broker.

Which was the wrong thing to do.

The insurer in question, Paymentshield Ltd, has subsequently written back to me saying my claim is with the broker and not Paymentshield as it was the broker that asked the questions?

Is that correct?

They are correct.

My opinion is that the claim is with Paymentshield as they would have stated what to ask and would have screened my application. Also I paid the monthly direct debit to Paymentshield NOT the broker?

At no time did anyone from paymentshield provide you with advice. So, therefore they are not liable for the advice given. There is nothing wrong with the product. The PPI issue isnt about the product. It is about the advice or sales process used at the time.

Paymentshield only do monthly premium PPI (so that means it is set up correctly) and it is done via an advice process (so unlike the sold cases, the adviser should have a factfind and statement of demands & needs). This is the main reasons why there are far fewer complaints about MPPI and especially those arranged by advisers rather than sellers.

If you have a complaint, you make it to the estate agent adviser. However, don't expect an adviser to roll over on a try-it-on complaint. You will need genuine and provable complaint reasons.

Richie1

dunstonh wrote: »

Which was the wrong thing to do.



They are correct.



At no time did anyone from paymentshield provide you with advice. So, therefore they are not liable for the advice given. There is nothing wrong with the product. The PPI issue isnt about the product. It is about the advice or sales process used at the time.

Paymentshield only do monthly premium PPI (so that means it is set up correctly) and it is done via an advice process (so unlike the sold cases, the adviser should have a factfind and statement of demands & needs). This is the main reasons why there are far fewer complaints about MPPI and especially those arranged by advisers rather than sellers.

If you have a complaint, you make it to the estate agent adviser. However, don't expect an adviser to roll over on a try-it-on complaint. You will need genuine and provable complaint reasons.

Thanks for your advice although may I suggest you change your tone and the way you speak to people. This is not a try it on claim and I personally do not appreciate the implications you make.

dunstonh

although may I suggest you change your tone and the way you speak to people. This is not a try it on claim and I personally do not appreciate the implications you make.

Where have i said you are trying it on?

With upto half of current PPI complaints being try-it-on/fraudulent there is a good chance yours is. However, it may not be. I didn't say yours was one way or the other. I just covered it as statistically, there is a good chance it is. You never gave any reasons for complaint in your post. So, I couldnt eliminate that is a possibility.

Richie1

dunstonh wrote: »

Where have i said you are trying it on?

With upto half of current PPI complaints being try-it-on/fraudulent there is a good chance yours is. However, it may not be. I didn't say yours was one way or the other. I just covered it as statistically, there is a good chance it is. You never gave any reasons for complaint in your post. So, I couldnt eliminate that is a possibility.

Your inference Madam is that I am trying it on. It is clear to see from your tone and your choice of language.

Now thank you for your help, although personally I disagree with you as the broker was acting as an appointed agent and therefore in law this makes the insurance provider liable.

roonaldo

Richie1 wrote: »

Your inference Madam is that I am trying it on. It is clear to see from your tone and yfour choice of language.

Now thank you for your help, although personally I disagree with you as the broker was acting as an appointed agent and therefore in law this makes the insurance provider liable.

No, the seller is the seller. The insurer is the insurer. The seller is responsible for advice.

There is nothing wrong with monthly mortgage ppi, as it was probably not mis-sold gives people the impression its a try it on.

ashleypride

Richie1 wrote: »

personally I disagree with you as the broker was acting as an appointed agent and therefore in law this makes the insurance provider liable.

You are entitled to your opinon, but the fact is you are wrong. It is completely upto the broker to determine your needs and requirements, and select a suitable product. The insurer hasn't give you any advice, there is no missale possible from them.

As dunstonh says, statisically it is unlikely a broker will have missold, they have strict proceduers they follow, needs analysis and a paper trail. You need proof, and they rightly bite back
http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/regulation/broker-set-to-sue-former-client-over-ppi-allegation/1035844.article

What is the reason you think you were missold?

dunstonh

although personally I disagree with you as the broker was acting as an appointed agent and therefore in law this makes the insurance provider liable.

Wrong. Check the law again.

Your inference Madam is that I am trying it on. It is clear to see from your tone and your choice of language.

you really need to chill as you are seeing things that are not there.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

you really need to chill as you are seeing things that are not there.

Boobs?:rotfl:

Richie1 wrote: »

Thanks for your advice although may I suggest you change your tone and the way you speak to people. This is not a try it on claim and I personally do not appreciate the implications you make.

So why do you think you have grounds for complaint?

londonbroker

All depends on if, when, and the detail and due diligence taken by payment shield at the time of application and what the court deems as their responsibility. Any UK court will want to ascertain if correct procedures were followed. Its true that the adviser will have a portion to answer for if a client is out of pocket due to misselling or misadvising, however if payment shield have not taken the correct steps in underwriting, or clarifying client information on an application they could be found liable. The court will want to establish if the best interests of the client have been considered, if it even gets that far, and although I certainly don't want to be misconstrued as implying that anyone is "trying it on", but I would say that it would need to be proved that, the policy was either not wanted, or not needed (possibliy because you already had one), or you were told that you had to take the policy, which was untrue and therefore you were misold to, or that you bought a protection product that you did not understand, and or would not have made a claim even if you qualified to do so.

Good luck.

dunstonh

All depends on if, when, and the detail and due diligence taken by payment shield at the time of application and what the court deems as their responsibility.

Paymentshield dont have to do any due diligence. The courts are not involved and seeing as the PPI issue is an FSA one and not legal, it would be daft to get them involved.