Financial Ombudsman

[Deleted User]

funny.money wrote: »

put in claim against Nationwide for PPI paid for 10 years - top reason, my husband was self-employed.

Did you actually ascertain whether the Mortgage PPI would have paid out if your husband had become unemployed? The vast majority of MPPI does cover the self employed, so that would invalidate your complaint straight away.

You seem to be focusing rather too much on the one adjudicator who upheld your concerns-it appears this was done in error rather than fairness. The Bank must have been very sure they were correct to appeal this decision and then obviously the Ombudsman sided with the Bank. As others have said, most MPPI complaints are usually rejected because it's still seen as one of only two versions of PPI actually worth having.

Years on, there doesn't appear to have been anything you could have done differently to change the outcome of your complaint.
Time to move on...

funny.money

dunstonh wrote: »

You said: "Because my husband was self-employed I was angry"


I did not call you that. I gave a scenario where only a compensation chaser would be unhappy. If that scenario fits you then I suppose I did call you it and if that is the case, then it makes you an unpleasant person as no-one likes compensation chasers.

I'd already said that I understood the top reason to claim is self-employment, when I went on to say I was angry because my husband was self-employed I would have thought, to most people, it was quite clear what I meant.


The one and only reason I started my claim was because of the advice and help given by Martin Lewis and this website - so we've all been encouraged to become 'compensation chasers' have we?

[Deleted User]

funny.money wrote: »

I understood the top reason to claim is self-employment

Only if the type of PPI you were complaining about didn't cover the self-employed. In this case it clearly must have or the Ombudsman would have upheld your complaint.

funny.money wrote: »

so we've all been encouraged to become 'compensation chasers' have we?

Well the evidence is clear from your own post on another thread;

funny.money wrote: »

By the way I have made claims for PPI, Endowment Mis-selling and Council Tax Rebate (wrong band) - and as the song goes 'two out of three ain't bad' which is my success rate.

funny.money

The three claims I have made have been after watching Martin Lewis on the TV or one of his own programmes. I would not have had a clue about these things otherwise. He enthusiastically encourages people, there are template letters for guidance and he always tells people to give it a go - there's nothing to lose. As you seem to have a problem with this (or is it just me personally) are you on the right forum?

misschicken

Self-employment isn't a one size fits all kind of thing. In my experience this has been one of the problems both in the selling of the PPI in the first place and complaints about mis-selling.

Firstly the FOS look at whether the terms were unfair in comparison to someone who was employed. Many of them were basically the same - so no mis-sale there. But then it's down to the details of how you make your living as a self-employed person - which could include contract work, temporary work, seasonal, 'part-time' and not working enough hours to hit the minimum - all of which could fall foul of the conditions of the policy. It all depends on the specific wording of the policy and the specific circumstance of the self-employment and the manner in which the policy was sold/bought.

My mortgage PPI complaint had four different adjudicator opinions (due to an initial !!!!-up at the FOS), all based on different elements of the policy and being self-employed. At one point I was specifically asked for a copy of my HMRC self assessment form from 10 years ago which the adjudicator insisted would show the exact number of hours I'd worked each week during the course of the year and unless I could provide it they would not uphold my complaint. No amount of explaining that a self assessment form doesn't show that type of information would persuade him otherwise. When I sent it to him he then refused to acknowledge it and came up with something else (Christmas work not being seasonal). Two and half years this went on before an Ombudsman agreed with opinion of the first adjudicator two years earlier, citing multiple concerns over sale of the policy.

Automatically saying a PPI covers the self-employed just because it says it does on the front page of the policy isn't good enough. Automatically saying self-employment is a reason for a mis-sale just because it says so on sites like these isn't good enough either.

dunstonh

I'd already said that I understood the top reason to claim is self-employment

It is a valid reason that can be used when the PPI does not cover self employed or has too onerous conditions. That tends to be mostly on loan PPI and some credit card PPI. However, most MPPI covers the self employed fairly. So, self employed would not be a valid reason for complaint if the policy covers the self employed. It would be if it didnt.

The one and only reason I started my claim was because of the advice and help given by Martin Lewis and this website - so we've all been encouraged to become 'compensation chasers' have we?

This site is good at highlighting consumer issues but it does also encourage compensation chasing. This is reflected in PPI complaints where providers are reporting that over half the complaints they get, making various of wrongdoing and about things said, dont actually have PPI. Clearly those people were compensation chasing and willing to tell lies to do so.

The fact you were told by Nationwide your complaint was wrong, you went to the FOS. The FOS also told you (in the end) that your complaint was wrong. Yet, here you are complaining about the fact you have not been mis-sold and are missing out on compensation. Surely it is better to not be mis-sold and not get compensation?

He enthusiastically encourages people, there are template letters for guidance and he always tells people to give it a go - there's nothing to lose.

With faceless banks and building societies, there is really nothing to lose. They dont hold their staff responsible. However, if people took that attitude with small local firms (and some have) then there is a lot to lose. I have seen mortgage advisers close to tears dealing with the cost and stress of try-it-on/fraudulent complaints. Unlike banks, mortgage brokers have the responsibility for their advice. Having to deal with fraudulent complaints is not fair on them. You say your husband is self employed. How would he like to deal with fraudulent or try-it-on complaints against him that would cost £850 for each one even if they were all rejected?

There is an ugly side to compensation chasing if you take the "nothing to lose" approach.

As you seem to have a problem with this (or is it just me personally) are you on the right forum?

This is a money saving and consumer rights forum. It is not a how to commit fraud or put in fake complaints to try and get compensation forum.

misschicken

Ooooh, I just got a word replaced with exclamation mark in my post - it's made it look worse than what I originally put!

funny.money

I had had enough of this and was going to walk away, however a niggly thought wouldn't go away. The 'compensation chaser' comment. If I fell on a banana skin or off of a ladder etc etc and wanted to find someone to blame and make some money out of it, that to me is a 'compensation chaser'. Reclaiming one's own money that has been wrongly paid is ? And I'm sorry but I do feel I should be able to talk about my claim and how I feel about it, whether anyone agrees with me or not, I am still entitled to my view.

'This is a money saving and consumer rights forum. It is not a how to commit fraud or put in fake complaints to try and get compensation forum.'

What on earth are you talking about now? Has anyone said it is?