Old ppi on mortgages

oporus

I think this is a long shot.

I was mis-sold ppi on two mortgages. They were one-off payments which were added to the mortgage debt. One was through Alliance and Leicester in 1980, the other was Abbey National in 1983. As far as I remember they were both in the region of £500 each time. They were definitely mis-sold, I was told that the granting of the mortgage was conditional on me agreeing to the payment.

Anyone any ideas or has anyone succeeded in claiming that far back. I have no paperwork but I'm sure the 2 banks know how much I would have been charged, it was a % of the mortgage amount.

[Deleted User]

oporus wrote: »

I have no paperwork

From THIRTY years ago?
Good luck with that!:D

dunstonh

I was mis-sold ppi on two mortgages. They were one-off payments which were added to the mortgage debt.

Single premium PPI is typically mis-sold. It should be monthly premium.

One was through Alliance and Leicester in 1980, the other was Abbey National in 1983. As far as I remember they were both in the region of £500 each time. They were definitely mis-sold, I was told that the granting of the mortgage was conditional on me agreeing to the payment.

That is not possible. No bank or building society has ever done single premium MPPI. Plus, 1980 and 1983 is typically before PPI was retailed. That was a late 80s product.

What you describe in your post is not PPI. It is MIG. A high value lending fee or mortgage indemnity guarantee as they were often called.

They were definitely mis-sold, I was told that the granting of the mortgage was conditional on me agreeing to the payment.

They were required as a condition of you getting a mortgage and you were definitely not mis-sold.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

What you describe in your post is not PPI. It is MIG. A high value lending fee or mortgage indemnity guarantee as they were often called.

I agree.:)

Goldiegirl

As soon I read the OP, I thought that the poster was referring to the mortgage guarantee policy.

I can't recall any PPI type policies for mortgages before the mid 1980's at the very earliest

This definately isn't PPI, and there is no mis-selling

magpiecottage

I agree with the other posters.

Furthermore, although both Alliance & Leicester and Abbey National were members of the old Building Societies Ombudsman scheme, it did not exist until 1986 - so FOS would have no jurisdiction.

oporus

I said it was a long shot, but I don't agree with many of the posts. Although I said it was a condition of the mortgage that was only verbal and I would not have bought it had I any choice, I had a very stable job at the time. It was PPI by another name. In fact I was probably one of the very first victims of this whole mis-selling scandal. Some IFAs still have this very negative attitude to their customers, time they stopped playing big buddies with the banks and insurance companies.

Anyway if people are going to make it difficult it is not worth the time and trouble. Nasty banks win again. Aw shucks.

_Andy_

"I said it was a long shot, but I don't agree with many of the posts."

Why post to begin with then? You've clearly decided you're right and everyone else is wrong.

If it was MIG then no, it wasn't 'PPI by another name'.

dunstonh

Although I said it was a condition of the mortgage that was only verbal and I would not have bought it had I any choice, I had a very stable job at the time.

Totally irrelevant. MIG is to do with the amount you are borrowing in relation to the property value. Nothing to do with your job and you had no choice in the matter (unless you increased your deposit)

It was PPI by another name.

Not it was not. There is not one thing in common with PPI.

In fact I was probably one of the very first victims of this whole mis-selling scandal.

No you were not. As you dont even have the product.

Some IFAs still have this very negative attitude to their customers, time they stopped playing big buddies with the banks and insurance companies.

You do realise that banks are competitors to IFAs. There is no buddy relationship.

Anyway if people are going to make it difficult it is not worth the time and trouble.

You are just making yourself look silly by attacking those that have responded. You were not mis-sold. You didnt have the product. There is no nasty bank winning here.

Just because you are in the wrong does not mean you should be attacking those that have corrected you.

oporus

Very interesting responses ... and very defensive.

Time you stopped trying to avoid the consequences of your actions boys.

-taff

You came here to ask for advice on whether you were missold and what it was you were sold.

No one has been defensive, they've explained your situation.

They are not responsible for your situation, you are. Take some responsibility for your own actions and your own misinterpretations.