civil servant missold ppi????

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

That wont be the reason it was upheld. The FOS have been rejecting complaints on civil servants and other public sector workers with the same sickness benefits. So, it is likely to be another reason.

As I said - nothing (s)he told us indicated a missale. We can only go on what we are told.

Nasqueron

I wonder, if in a couple more years OP will be coming on here after further austerity, having lost their job, complaining about being miss-sold the idea of reclaiming miss-sold MPPI after their house goes back to the bank...

addedvaluebob

Or we could say well done to the OP for sticking with it and winning their case.

Whatever their situation was at the time of sale we don't know, but the OP clearly said it was an ASU policy and the civil service scheme already had 6 months full and 6 months half pay, so without knowing the case in detail, or the policy T & Cs it would appear that the existing package from the civil service was an important factor.

Well done.

magpiecottage

We don't actually know if FOS or Santander upheld it.

As dunstonh says, FOS are generally rejecting complaints about Mortgage PPI if the premium was regular, even on six months full pay, six months half arrangement.

However, from what the OP says, it sounds like Abbey paid out itself. That may be because they are under political pressure or because they are using low grade staff who cannot differentiate between different forms of PPI and/or are on incentives based on the number of complaints "closed".

I have not had a case of this nature that has been successful.

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

We don't actually know if FOS or Santander upheld it.

The timescale of this thread (it was begun two years ago) would seem to indicate that it was an Ombudsman adjudication.

magpiecottage wrote: »

from what the OP says, it sounds like Abbey paid out itself

Two years after originally rejecting the complaint? I doubt they will have paid unless instructed to by FOS.

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

We don't actually know if FOS or Santander upheld it.

I have not had a case of this nature that has been successful.

So just to clarify, does 'I have not had a case' mean that you have submitted complaints using this argument or rejected them on behalf of advisers from members of the public?

magpiecottage

I have rejected them.

That is not to say that a complaint citing those grounds never gets upheld - simply that those grounds do not sway the decision.

agb1634

i stopped pursuing ppi for awhile, then went direct to abbey who paid out within 6 weeks, no fos.yes ppi was missold according to abbey.

magpiecottage

Interesting. It does occur to me that the factfinding at Abbey might not have been as good as an independent broker because their adviser would only be looking at whether their lending criteria were met whereas an independent would be looking at all lenders' criteria and need more information.

That extra information would make a complaint easier to defend.

For example, Abbey may not have asked about sick pay because the adviser didn't need to know for a lending decision. When the complaint came in and the complainant showed they had sufficient sick pay, there was no defence.

The independent broker asked about sick pay and the borrower said they had none. When the complaint comes in they can point to the record of what the borrower said and defend themselves. Of course it is possible that the borrower gave the wrong answer but that would not be the broker's fault.

addedvaluebob

Any adviser should have been aware of the benefits for an employee of the civil service in the vent of illness etc before selling them a policy whether it was regulated or not at the time of the sale