HSBC Mortgage PPI Claim

dunstonh

As this loan was repaid early and consolidated into a remortgage would this value be a settlement figure that I had to pay for repaying early and the remaining was rebated?

Early repayment of the loan would mean the redemption figure would have seen a part refund of the PPI premium. So, you would expect less.

do they have to provide me with a breakdown i.e Monthly Premium paid, dates and months paid etc.

Many do automatically. However, you can ask them if they havent.

Also they did not investigate my claim that I did not receive any rebate nor did they consider interest payments incurred for any PP carried over into the Re-mortgage.

The rebate wouldnt come to you. It would be dealt with within the redemption figures. Also, they dont have to consider the interest on the mortgage as that is what the 8% is for. If you take the lump sum and pay it into the mortgage then you cease to pay any more interest.

ytfc2012

Thanks for the reply. I will go back and ask them to give me a more detailed breakdown of how they came to their totals.

ytfc2012

Had my response back from HSBC in respect to the Mortgage Payment Protector and not what I expected - rejected! Suprising really seeing as it was for the same reasons that the Loan PPI claim that was upheld. I was working for an employment agency on a 6 month contract so the Insurance would have not paid out. However, the response says the following:

"You have stated that you believe the Mortgage Payment Protector should not have been recommended to you because you were working on a 6 month temporary contract. However, the confidential questionnaire completed at the time of sale confirms that when your Mortgage Payment Protector was taken in June 2001, you were employed by Westaff as a Financial Analyst."

This is not correct - Westaff are an employment agency and I was paid by them on an initial 6 month temporary contract working for the largest employer in our town. Therefore, I was not in full time employment and this was made very clear to the HSBC Financial Planning Manager who conducted the Financial Planning Review. This was the main reason why hes suggested that my parents act as gaurantors for the mortgage and that I took out all of the extra cover plans. I even had to hand them over copies of my previous 3 months payslips which clearly stated that they came from Westaff but that my place of work was for this other company. I can easily prove that I was working for Westaff on a 6 month contract but am now concerned that because the guy ticked my employment status as EMPLOYED by Westaff that they might be able to wriggle out of this on a technicality. This doesn't change the fact that I was a temporary worker on a short term contract with another company and would never have qualified for cover from the Mortgage PPI policy. How do you think I should respond as I think that they are just going to stick to their guns and say that you said you were 'employed' therefore it was not miss-sold.

dunstonh

Suprising really seeing as it was for the same reasons that the Loan PPI claim that was upheld.

Not really. MPPI is monthly premium. Loan PPI is front loaded and charged interest. MPPI covers a major debt with potentially life changing issues if not repaid. Loan PPI does not. Most MPPI is put in place on an advised basis. Loan PPI is not.

Statistically, there are fewer upheld complaints on MPPI than any other type of PPI by both firms and the FOS.

"You have stated that you believe the Mortgage Payment Protector should not have been recommended to you because you were working on a 6 month temporary contract. However, the confidential questionnaire completed at the time of sale confirms that when your Mortgage Payment Protector was taken in June 2001, you were employed by Westaff as a Financial Analyst."

be careful here. It may well be wrong as you say but that would also indicate your mortgage application is likely to be wrong as well. That "could" suggest they could treat it is a fraudulent application. You dont want that as it introduces a whole host of issues for you.

ytfc2012

dunstonh wrote: »

Not really. MPPI is monthly premium. Loan PPI is front loaded and charged interest. MPPI covers a major debt with potentially life changing issues if not repaid. Loan PPI does not. Most MPPI is put in place on an advised basis. Loan PPI is not.

Statistically, there are fewer upheld complaints on MPPI than any other type of PPI by both firms and the FOS.



be careful here. It may well be wrong as you say but that would also indicate your mortgage application is likely to be wrong as well. That "could" suggest they could treat it is a fraudulent application. You dont want that as it introduces a whole host of issues for you.

I understand what you say dunsonh - I had to give 3 months of pay slips and they clearly state that I was being paid by Westaff (employment agency) but working for another company. I can easily get proof of this fact and it was made plain and simple at the Mortgage application. As for the financial planning review the fact that the advisor selected EMPLOYED by Westaff is a confusing factor - all it was was a screen print from their computer that was from a 1 on 1 face to face interview! I made no bones about the fact that I was working at the biggest employer in the town via Westaff and that is why they asked for additional assurances such as other income protection policies and my parents as acting as gaurantors! I have spoken to the FOS and they have upheld claims coz the bank didn't record ur details correctly - i could not mislead them on this unless I was actually employed by Westaff as a recruitment consultant or in accounts etc but my payslips stated my location of work for the company. Not sure what to do but am confident that I was truthfull throught the mortgage application (which is not being called into question) and at the Financial Planning Review when the MPPI was recommended (where my employment status is being called into question).

[Deleted User]

ytfc2012 wrote: »

I have spoken to the FOS and they have upheld claims coz the bank didn't record ur details correctly

Be careful here, speaking to "FOS" is only speaking to their telephone staff who are not qualified as Ombudsmen, or giving an official adjudication.

dunstonh

I have spoken to the FOS and they have upheld claims coz the bank didn't record ur details correctly

That would be very unusual. Normally the FOS look at facts. Although the telephone team at the FOS wouldnt know that as they are not ombudsman or adjudicators.

We are not putting you off as you may indeed have a case on the MPPI part. Just making sure you tread carefully and you are confident the mortgage application is safe.

roonaldo

I think this will all come down to whether its clear on the docs whether you were a temporary worker. If its unclear and you signed for mortgage/ppi being employed, then its non-dislcosure.

ytfc2012

roonaldo wrote: »

I think this will all come down to whether its clear on the docs whether you were a temporary worker. If its unclear and you signed for mortgage/ppi being employed, then its non-dislcosure.

Thanks for the advice guys. The FOS weren't advising on my specific case but were referring to other situations where banks have put down wrong details or not investigated thoroughly certain things - as HSBC have continuallly told me the processes they have in place are thorough and are their to protect the bank and the individual. As this was a Financial Review conducted 1 on 1 behind a computer screen it is my word against theirs in a way but as I have said previously it is a difficult one as the Company that the guy recorded that I was EMPLOYED by is a Recruitment Agency and this was made clear to them - I was paid by Westaff but does that mean I was employed by them on a six month contract? I have all of the evidence to prove my employment status and had to provide 3 months worth od payslips that show that I was working for a company via Westaff. If it is classed as non disclosure what might happen?

dunstonh

The FOS weren't advising on my specific case but were referring to other situations where banks have put down wrong details or not investigated thoroughly certain things -

The telephone staff wont know. They have a notorious reputation for being totally agreeable with people in what they say and these people do not have the qualifications or experience to tell you the correct information.

The FOS does not automatically uphold complaints due to incorrect information.