Northern Rock / Cardif Pinnacle help

MrC100

Hi,
I am looking to find out if we have a case for redress, and am unsure who I should approach to complain. I would appreciate any information, because I am baffled!

This seems a little convoluted, but I think these are the relevant points to set the scene:

I bought a house with my wife in 1996. The mortgage required was at the very top of our wage multiples. (within £1K) We applied for a mortgage at our local branch of Northern Rock. We were told at the time that we should take out the PPI recommended by NR. (General Accident) I told them that we had sufficient cover through our employment to cover sickness already, but they persuaded me to get the unemployment aspect of the PPI anyway. The reasons given were that we would be better placed to get the loan offer agreed, and that our interest rate would be lower if we accepted PPI. We were put under pressure to sign up when we had our application review.

Time has passed, and Northern Rock is no more; and the General Accident policy has become Cardif Pinnacle. It has been largely forgotten, and just goes out of our account every month. I don't think I have any information about the risk of none acceptance, or differing interest rate structure - but will dig further in my files if we have a case.

Quite simply, I don't know if we have a case, or against whom. any advice would be extremely welcome.

Thanks, Neil

dunstonh

We applied for a mortgage at our local branch of Northern Rock. We were told at the time that we should take out the PPI recommended by NR. (General Accident) I told them that we had sufficient cover through our employment to cover sickness already, but they persuaded me to get the unemployment aspect of the PPI anyway.

Ok, that seems to be all ok as unemployment only doesnt overlap with employer benefits.

I don't think I have any information about the risk of none acceptance, or differing interest rate structure - but will dig further in my files if we have a case.

If the paperwork says you need it as a condition of borrowing then you have no case. If the paperwork says nothing about then you really have no case either as it becomes an unprovable allegation that without evidence ends up being rejected on that particular point. A lot of deals in the mid 90s were cross subsidised with an insurance product. So, it is possible that was a reason to have it. That was and still is allowed.

Quite simply, I don't know if we have a case, or against whom. any advice would be extremely welcome.

it is possible you were mis-sold. However, you almost certainly have no evidence to support that mis-sale. In those cases, the complaint when then fall back to suitability and as it is unemployment only rather than ASU, it would indicate that it was suitable for you. Unlike loan and credit card PPI, mortgage insurances are viewed as being more important. So, if a financial need exists, then it is likely that without any evidence of wrongdoing, a complaint would be rejected.