Mortgage in 2003

Confused_by_the_rules

First time poster so please help. I have claimed for the PPI sold to me in 2003 along with a Kensington mortgage. The policy was a monthly policy but they did not ask at the time if I had any pre existing medical conditions which I do that would exclude me claiming (pre existing heart condition) The broker has wrote back stating my condition was irrevelant as all they had to do at the time was confirm cost and if the policy was optional at the time as an advised sale did not then exist and they at the time only subscibed to something called the Mortgage Code. They have sent me a call recording and yes they confirm cost and ask if I want the cover but nothing else and have rejected my complaint. Can this be right and shoud I send it to the adjudicator

[Deleted User]

Confused_by_the_rules wrote: »

They have sent me a call recording and yes they confirm cost and ask if I want the cover but nothing else

Pretty damning evidence I'm afraid. If they gave no advice during the call it would have been up to you to determine whether the insurance was suitable for you.
Sounds mis-bought rather than mis-sold.
Are you sure the policy wouldn't pay out, even given your pre-existing medical condition?

Insider101

It's a myth to say that PPI policies don't cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. Even where the policy does have a PEMC exclusion (and not all of them do) it's the condition that's excluded and not the person. So if someone with a history of heart trouble had a heart attack they may not be covered. But if that person broke their leg then they would be.

The other thing to note is that where there is a PEMC exclusion, many of them will not apply it if the insured has been free of symptoms and not had to see a doctor for a certain period.

Did you not receive the terms & conditions in the post?

One other thing to near in mind is that if the seller ( was it Kensington themselves or a broker?) only subscribed to MCCB and not the GISC code of conduct, as far as I can see this one can't be referred to FOS due to the time frame.

Confused_by_the_rules

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Pretty damning evidence I'm afraid. If they gave no advice during the call it would have been up to you to determine whether the insurance was suitable for you.
Sounds mis-bought rather than mis-sold.
Are you sure the policy wouldn't pay out, even given your pre-existing medical condition?

Yes I have sinced checked and no it would not have paid out. Surely they should have asked suitability questions like this? I can not believe what they say either about advised sales not existing, is this true. The advisor did however agree with me on the call that PPI was a good idea

Confused_by_the_rules

Insider101 wrote: »

It's a myth to say that PPI policies don't cover people with pre-existing medical conditions. Even where the policy does have a PEMC exclusion (and not all of them do) it's the condition that's excluded and not the person. So if someone with a history of heart trouble had a heart attack they may not be covered. But if that person broke their leg then they would be.

The other thing to note is that where there is a PEMC exclusion, many of them will not apply it if the insured has been free of symptoms and not had to see a doctor for a certain period.

Did you not receive the terms & conditions in the post?

One other thing to near in mind is that if the seller ( was it Kensington themselves or a broker?) only subscribed to MCCB and not the GISC code of conduct, as far as I can see this one can't be referred to FOS due to the time frame.

It was a broker, a friend of mine says FOS can look at claims under this mortgage code but it must be in breach of it for them to sort if that makes any sense

[Deleted User]

Confused_by_the_rules wrote: »

Surely they should have asked suitability questions like this?

Surely you should? You were buying it!

I'm afraid it doesn't look good for you. As 101 says above, you probably don't even have right of referral to the Ombudsman.

Confused_by_the_rules

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Surely you should? You were buying it!

I'm afraid it doesn't look good for you. As 101 says above, you probably don't even have right of referral to the Ombudsman.

I kind of see where you are coming from but that why we use these brokers is it not, otherwise they would not exist . Its like saying a gas fire sales man would sell me one if I was electric.
Everyone else gets this PPI and it would have been nice to pay off the Christmas bills

dunstonh

Yes I have sinced checked and no it would not have paid out.

MPPI normally only doesnt pay out on that particular illness or any that arises from it. It would pay out on other illnesses. That is allowed.

The broker has wrote back stating my condition was irrevelant as all they had to do at the time was confirm cost and if the policy was optional at the time as an advised sale did not then exist and they at the time only subscibed to something called the Mortgage Code.

That effectively ends the complaint as its pre-regulation. The majority of brokers did not become regulated until Jan 2005. So, they can reject pre 2005 sales.

Can this be right and shoud I send it to the adjudicator

You dont have access to the FOS as its pre-regulation against a firm that was not regulated at the the time.

I can not believe what they say either about advised sales not existing, is this true.

yes

It was a broker, a friend of mine says FOS can look at claims under this mortgage code but it must be in breach of it for them to sort if that makes any sense

Mortgage code has nothing to do with insurance.

Everyone else gets this PPI and it would have been nice to pay off the Christmas bills

Not really. Most MPPI complaints are rejected. Only 0.2% of PPI complaints at FOS are against adviser/brokers (stat from early last year). I'm still not convinced the MPPI would fully reject all illnesses. Anything linked to the heart or following on from that yes but not anything else.

meer53

Confused_by_the_rules wrote: »

I kind of see where you are coming from but that why we use these brokers is it not, otherwise they would not exist . Its like saying a gas fire sales man would sell me one if I was electric.
Everyone else gets this PPI and it would have been nice to pay off the Christmas bills

Not everyone gets repaid PPI, lots of complaints are not upheld.

Confused_by_the_rules

dunstonh wrote: »

MPPI normally only doesnt pay out on that particular illness or any that arises from it. It would pay out on other illnesses. That is allowed.


That effectively ends the complaint as its pre-regulation. The majority of brokers did not become regulated until Jan 2005. So, they can reject pre 2005 sales.



You dont have access to the FOS as its pre-regulation against a firm that was not regulated at the the time.



yes



Mortgage code has nothing to do with insurance.



Not really. Most MPPI complaints are rejected. Only 0.2% of PPI complaints at FOS are against adviser/brokers (stat from early last year). I'm still not convinced the MPPI would fully reject all illnesses. Anything linked to the heart or following on from that yes but not anything else.

They said that section 3.2 of this mortage code covered all insurances, that must back me up

Confused_by_the_rules

meer53 wrote: »

Not everyone gets repaid PPI, lots of complaints are not upheld.

not by most people on this site