PPI on Mortgage

Mr_Loads

Hi all,

First time poster. To cut a long story short, ive just found out this morning that my wife and i have been paying PPI for 13 years. We have been paying £58pm for quite a while. The point is the broker we used is a very small independent broker, and i mean, very small, about 5 members of staff. I have never been interested in taking out PPI in any form so i know i wouldn't have agreed to pay for this. I actually thought the amount was for buildings and contents insurance. The thing is, what do i do now? I have cancelled the policy and was told by the lady over the phone to deal with the broker direct, but i wouldn't know what steps to take. What is the success likely to be as i probably haven't got any of the original paperwork anymore. Any feedback/help would be great.

Thanks in advance

dunstonh

The point is the broker we used is a very small independent broker, and i mean, very small, about 5 members of staff.

Key bit of information as most independents didnt become regulated until 2005. So, they do not have to consider pre 2005 sales complaints.

I have never been interested in taking out PPI in any form so i know i wouldn't have agreed to pay for this.

So how do you explain an application to an insurer being accepted and the direct debit at the bank being accepted?

What is the success likely to be as i probably haven't got any of the original paperwork anymore.

Virtually no chance of any success as its pre-regulation. Plus, MPPI with monthly premium is how it should be set up. Plus you have had over 150 statements with you paying it. Even if it was post regulation you would say you had bad odds. Just 0.2% of PPI complaints at the FOS are adviser cases. most are rejected. Only 1% of complaints at the FOS are about independents and most are rejected. MPPI has the lowest success rate of any type of PPI. The FSCS (which doesnt apply to you as its pre-regulation but gives you an idea of their uphold rate) only uphold 5% of complaints against mortgage advisers.

dunstonh

Wouldn't the insurer be regulated eg GISC, ABI pre-2005?

Yes but the insurer did not give the advice.

Would the insurer deal with a broker who did not subscribe to some form of regulation?

Yes. There was no requirement to be. For example, I am an IFA and I wasnt a member of the GISC.

magpiecottage

13 years ago was 2000 - a year before the GISC code existed.

The ABI is a trade association, not a regulator.

In addition, if the broker sold a PPI there would have been a direct debit which, in 2000 would have required a signature.

roonaldo

sun73 wrote: »

Some insurers and banks have accepted liability when ppi was sold in different environments

where? If you believe something is mis-sold you complain to the seller. this sale is nothing to do with a bank, but a mortgage brokerage.

Time and time again I read negative responses from the so called experts, do you believe you are helping people by demolishing their potentially valid complaint?

you can either be told the truths or something pink and fluffy that you want to hear. you sound like you're from CAG website.

the point of the responses on this post is that the OP ISN'T going to get their money back.

You also have the issue is that Mortgage PPI is still recommended to be taken, the OP refers to a monthly policy and as long as sold correctly there is nothing wrong with it. Having PPI isnt a reason in itself.

dunstonh

Some insurers and banks have accepted liability when ppi was sold in different environments, there are many such cases here on the forum.

This is not a bank. It is an intermediary. Banks have to consider complaints going back further because of various codes they adhered to.

It's not the broker or the shop who provided finance for the product.

The complaint is about the advice in setting up a standalone product that has nothing to do with the finance.

Time and time again I read negative responses from the so called experts, do you believe you are helping people by demolishing their potentially valid complaint?

Yes. As you say, we are experts. You are not. Do you want to read the truth/facts or lies that make you feel better?

Mr_Loads

Hi all,

Thanks for all your comments.

Firstly, on another matter, what's the score with this site? Last night i left quite a long response and when clicked for it to be uploaded i had been logged out. Ive just spent a good 20 minutes doing another post and its done the same again to me!

I'm not going to spend ages doing all again in case i get logged out again!

So a couple of points.

Firstly - I go my maths wrong, it was 2002 which is 11 years not 13

Secondly - I 100% assure you i did not know that this was PP! i was paying. I have really struggled to make these payments sometimes when i had fallen out of work and even phoned the insurance company up to ask them not to cancel my policy. The reason for this is because we had two back to back floods in 2007 and we believed that if the insurance lapsed we wouldn't get insurance elsewhere because we were classed as a high risk.

Like i have already said, i wouldn't have PPI, not knowingly anyway.

dunstonh

Firstly - I go my maths wrong, it was 2002 which is 11 years not 13

Doesnt help as regulation started in January 2005.

Secondly - I 100% assure you i did not know that this was PP! i was paying. I have really struggled to make these payments sometimes when i had fallen out of work and even phoned the insurance company up to ask them not to cancel my policy. The reason for this is because we had two back to back floods in 2007 and we believed that if the insurance lapsed we wouldn't get insurance elsewhere because we were classed as a high risk.

Unfortunately, whatever the reason, it wont help with a pre-regulation case via an intermediary. That ultimately is your problem. You could have the strongest nailed on complaint going and they can still refuse to consider it as pre-regulation.

Mr_Loads

Thanks again,

Why is this then? I'm sorry, i'm just struggling to get my head round why? Why is it the banks are being penalised but this IFA cant be!

magpiecottage

Mr_Loads wrote: »

Why is it the banks are being penalised but this IFA cant be!

Penalised is in some ways a fair term because they banks (and building societies) are being required to address complaints about something which, at the time, was lawful.

The point is that if a bank or building society was a member of a relevant Ombudsman scheme at the time of the events being complained about then FOS has jurisdiction.

IFAs were subject to jurisdiction of the PIA Ombudsman scheme from 1995 but only for investment business.

They would also fall under FOS jurisdiction for PPI IF they subscribed to the GISC code but very few did. In theory you could attempt to rely on the Mortgage Code instead to bring it under FOS jurisdiction but the Mortgage Code Compliance Board advocated providing monthly premium PPI in all cases so you would face an uphill battle.

Finally, you actually have to find the right person to complain to.

Mr_Loads

Ahhh well, seems all IS lost then. Thanks for your help anyway chaps.