civil servant missold ppi????

addedvaluebob

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

…in your opinion

but at least it's an opinion based on 30 years working in the FS business including working as a complaint manager and compliance officer

Insider101

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Completely incorrect. It forms part of the requirement to 'know your client'. If the adviser failed to take into account the existence of employee benefits then the compliance team have not trained out the sales process properly and ultimately it is a failing of the company responsible for the sale.

Nonsense.

There is a requirement on the firm to assess suitability (the term know your customer is now used more in an AML context) prior to making a recommendation. Where the recommendation relates to insurance cover then it is correct that it should take into account existing cover/benefits.

If a recommendation was made without this information being asked for and it was not suitable then that is a failure on the part of the firm. However, if the information was asked for and the response provided was incorrect then the adviser can only be expected to act based on that. So the fault is with the customer for providing inaccurate information, not the adviser for not playing Sherlock Holmes.

As Magpie Cottage said, the FCA itself recognises that the firm is entitled to rely on information provided by the customer unless it is aware that it is out of date, incomplete or inaccurate.

Accusations of failing in a "duty of care" are subjective, impossible to prove and usually made when the accuser cannot identify a clear failure on the part of the respondent. If questions have been asked and misleading answers provided then as long as those answers are documented it is clear that the adviser has been reasonably diligent.

This is especially the case for a protection sale 9 years ago which would likely have been a simple transactional sale as opposed to the professional relationship between financial planners and their customers which is so in vogue today.

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

It forms part of the requirement to 'know your client'.

Correct, but its not 'Guess your customer' which you mostly imply.

roonaldo

saver861 wrote: »

If on the other hand the customer has explained existing coverage and the adviser still advises on taking out MPPI then surely there must be question marks?

That would be bad in an advised sale, but in your case it was a non-advised sale. The sales person is not allowed to provide any recommendation. So if you tell them you have 12 months sick pay and they say "in that case sir you dont need the PPI" then they have strayed into an advised sale which would be a different failing all together.

dunstonh

There are many ombudsman outcomes but here is a good example...

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=50139

A civil servant. Limited file records exist. Whether it was advised or non-advised, whether he needed it or not, unprovable allegations etc.

An interesting bit is:
Finally, Mr Q has also referred to several internet sites which say PPI ‘isn’t valid’ for civil servants.

There is no blanket exclusion in the policy for civil servants. And Mr Q was covering a
mortgage; which is a substantial and long-term financial commitment. Looking at his then
circumstances, I think he would be likely to have viewed the policy as offering a valuable
benefit to him – especially considering its relatively modest cost compared to the potential
benefit offered if he had to make a claim. The policy would have paid out in addition to any
redundancy or savings provision Mr Q

----
So, as we say, the sale of MPPI to a civil servant is not a mis-sale.

sussexbhoy

dunstonh wrote: »

So, as we say, the sale of MPPI to a civil servant is not a mis-sale.

It might be according to Abbey/Santanders internal complaint process, unless anyone can prove otherwise. MPPI has an uphold rate of 50% don't forget on initial complaint

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

but at least it's an opinion based on 30 years working in the FS business including working as a complaint manager and compliance officer

Really?

Whay are you not aware that the FCA says, in its rules about assesing suitability, that a firm may rely on the information provided by its clients?

sussexbhoy wrote: »

It might be according to Abbey/Santanders internal complaint process, unless anyone can prove otherwise. MPPI has an uphold rate of 50% don't forget on initial complaint

That was the point I discussed earlier. In theory, firms should be consistent but there can be an inconsistency if you get somebody who doesn't know the rules properly.

dunstonh

It might be according to Abbey/Santanders internal complaint process, unless anyone can prove otherwise. MPPI has an uphold rate of 50% don't forget on initial complaint

We cant say if it has a 50% uphold rate or not because the data does not provide the details to assume that. Banks will almost certainly uphold more than mortgage brokers, for example.

Firms can also often pay out through auto-payouts which will show on the stats or have a failure reason that has nothing to do with the reason for complaint.

The point on this thread is that the person thought civil servant was a reason for complaint. The FOS can be clearly seen to not consider it a reason for complaint and even make reference to what the internet says. This would suggest that either being a civil servant wasnt the reason they upheld it and something else was or it was an auto payout or santander were just lazy and inconsistent in their response.

addedvaluebob

So what can be verified then.

Apparently no adviser or mortgage salesman ever had to think beyond the sales process and take into account that the civil service has/had the best benefits package in the country. This is day one week one before you sell anything to anyone, advised or not.

The FCA 'requirement' to take into account whatever a client tells you without challenge does not take into account the duty of care that there is a reasonable expectation that the salesperson should know or reasonably be expected to know certain facts, in this case the benefits of being a civil service employee. This should have been trained in on the salespersons induction course with a big warning, but sadly was not the case.

As for the accusation that I am a liar it is quite clear from the comment 'anyone can claim' there is no argument or rebuttal, this clearly calls into question my statement of 30 years in FS and is not some form of question about whether I jump to conclusions.

You say potato I say tomato perhaps my standards are just higher than those expected by the FCA and FOS in what an adviser should have known/done

Insider101

magpiecottage wrote: »

I would not want to put words into moneyineptitude's mouth but, roonaldo and I have both pointed out how certain of your posts do not match what can be verified.

Insider101 has elaborated on why I was correct and you were not - further explaining the FCA's view - and dunstonh has provided a link to an ombudsman's decision which supports our view.

So, your statements are contracted by roonaldo, Insder101, dunstonh and me. I fully accept the principle that a minority of one can be right but we can evidence published views by both the FCA and FOS, which have support our stance.

Does moneyineptitude's comment amount to an accusation that you are a liar? Or does it perhaps suggest you jump to conclusions without fully thinking through what really might be happening?

The post I quote above would seem consistent with the latter.

According to the latest post, the FCA and FOS are wrong as well as all of the four quoted above.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)