mortgage ppi

bbjb_2

After using Martin's template I was informed by letter from Santander last week that they have upheld my complaint for ppi sold with a mortgage I had through Alliance and Leicester from 2002 to 2009. They have made an offer of 2,755 reflecting a refund to include the total premiums paid during that time + statutory interest. I was very pleased that they found in my favour as I have documents from when I took out the mortgage 'strongly advising' me to take out the ppi prior to the loan being finalised, eventhough I was in a secure professional post at that time. However, I am disappointed with this amount as it seems quite low and thought I may be entitled to more eg. what I could have paid on my mortgage if this money was not channelled into the ppi. Am I being realistic or should I accept their offer. Can anyone please advise.

dunstonh

I was very pleased that they found in my favour as I have documents from when I took out the mortgage 'strongly advising' me to take out the ppi prior to the loan being finalised, eventhough I was in a secure professional post at that time.

Sounds like you have got lucky there as MPPI has a very low success rate. A secure professional post is not reasons for upholding your complaint. So, it must have been something else.

However, I am disappointed with this amount as it seems quite low and thought I may be entitled to more eg. what I could have paid on my mortgage if this money was not channelled into the ppi.

Money you spend onmobile phones, dining out or whatever doesnt get channelled into your mortgage if you didnt spend it so there is no reason to think that MPPI payments would be put that way either.

Am I being realistic or should I accept their offer.

There is no logic in your argument. The redress method is defined. A return of premiums plus interest. Unless you think the figures are wrong, there is no reason to not accept it.

roonaldo

your only entitled to a refund of ppi premiums and interest

[Deleted User]

bbjb wrote: »

I am disappointed with this amount as it seems quite low and thought I may be entitled to more

You only receive back what you actually paid (plus interest).

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Sounds like you have got lucky there as MPPI has a very low success rate. A secure professional post is not reasons for upholding your complaint.

If anything, a professional ought to know better - so I would say the OP was very lucky.

bbjb_2

Thanks to everyone for their replies and information. Would have acknowledge you all sooner but as new to the site and couldn't find how to get back to the post until now. I'm send out my acceptance letter today and enjoy!

dunstonh

My compliance company has just published the outcome of an MPPI complaint which was refused. The person referred it to the FOS and the FOS ruled in favour of the firm. These are the details:

We have recently received positive adjudication from the Financial Ombudsman Service regarding the sale of a joint ASU policy.

At the time of the sale both clients were employed by a large firm and had been for some time. They confirmed that their employer provided 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay should they be off work due to ill health. The policy sold to the clients had accident, sickness and unemployment cover with a 30 day deferment period.

The clients subsequently complained that, whilst they needed the Unemployment cover, the Accident and Sickness element of the policy was surplus to their needs and shouldn’t have been sold to them.

The Financial Ombudsman declined the complaint. In the adjudication they confirmed that, where ASU plans have been sold in connection with a mortgage, they place higher significance on the long term protection needs of the client over the whole term of the mortgage rather than just their immediate needs and circumstances.

Their view was that employee benefits are only relevant should the client remain with the same employer throughout their working life. If the ASU is set up as mortgage protection it is reasonable to assume that most clients will move employers during the term of the mortgage and therefore, in these circumstances, duplication of cover can be appropriate providing the client was eligible for the benefits under the policy.

However they also confirmed that there is no standardised approach nor specific guidance as each case is judged on its own merits.

---

So, you can see, how lucky you have got