Help. Who do I approach to make my claim

Kidhands

Hope someone can help advise me re a PPI reclaim.

I recently discovered when applying for mortgage through a new broker that I have considerable cover through work already, critical illness, redundancy etc. My previous mortgage advisor was part of an estate agents and no longer operates, nor do the company she worked for operate through the estate agent.

She had seen me through several remortgages of the flat I still let. Each time selling me cover which included that which I was (unknowingly) already covered by via my work arrangement. She had never asked me to check as my newest advisor did so it went undiscovered for many years.

My question is, if I were to make a claim, who would I approach?

1) the mortgage advisor is long gone now as I dealt with her so many years and so long ago now. But presumably the blame and responsibility lies with her
2) the company she worked for?
3) the insurer? As they are the ones I paid but would never have needed them to pay out? There will be at least 2 or 3 companies as moved with the best deals at the time
4) the lender. I contacted a PPI claim advice co and they said the lender, or in my case several lenders (Halifax, Nationwide at least), are responsible. But this seemed a little unfair to me. Is this true?

Any information would be gratefully received. Thank you!

[Deleted User]

Kidhands wrote: »

the mortgage advisor is long gone now as I dealt with her so many years and so long ago now. But presumably the blame and responsibility lies with her

This is the correct answer. However, "blame and responsibility" are inappropriate words until you show beyond doubt that there was any mis-selling in the first place.
Certainly, any mis-selling accusation you make must be levelled at the person or financial institution who sold it to you.

dunstonh

I recently discovered when applying for mortgage through a new broker that I have considerable cover through work already, critical illness, redundancy etc.

Redundancy doesnt overlap with MPPI. Nor does CI cover. FOS has been rejecting complaints where people have had 6 months full pay, 6 months half pay with MPPI. So, nothing you say has any issues there.

1) the mortgage advisor is long gone now as I dealt with her so many years and so long ago now. But presumably the blame and responsibility lies with her

yes or her employer if she was employed or network if she was attached to one.

Insurer or lender has no liability.

Kidhands

Interesting, so you think I would not have any basis for a complaint? That this would be deemed to be justified sell to me?

The recent broker thought it odd I'd ever taken any when he couldn't find anything to sell me that would give me any further cover than what I had through work. Be good to know if you think this might not be the case and I could be wasting time making a complaint to the mortgage broker firm?

[Deleted User]

Kidhands wrote: »

Be good to know if you think this might not be the case and I could be wasting time making a complaint to the mortgage broker firm?

The only thing to be aware of is that most mortgage PPI complaints are rejected. If you do complain don't expect it to be as straightforward as a loan or credit card complaint. Remember that a full "demands and needs" document is completed with a mortgage and so it's very difficult to argue that you didn't need or want insurance that you signed detailed paperwork agreeing to.
It's not so much that you can have no complaint, it's more than any complaint is usually easily defended.

dunstonh

Interesting, so you think I would not have any basis for a complaint? That this would be deemed to be justified sell to me?

We cant be 100% sure as we have no access to the documents. However, we do know what MPPI covers and what it doesnt cover. Redundancy and CI does not overlap. So, a complaint on that basis is easily rejected.

We also know that MPPI complaints at the FOS where people have argued 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay have been rejected. This is because unlike loan and credit cards, a mortgage is a long term major debt with lifestyle changing consequences if it goes unpaid. It is more important to have it covered than loan and credit card.

Take a look at this FOS outcome:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=26419

Ignore the bit in the middle which highlights inconsistencies from what appears to be the use of a template letter. Jump to the last page which gives a perfect summary of how the FOS view MPPI.

Whilst the information Mr Q has given us about the employee benefits Mr Q had might have meant he would have been able to cope for a short period if anything went wrong, a mortgage loan represents a significant commitment

There are plenty of others and the consistent theme is
1 - long term debt of major significance
2 - MPPI pays out in addition to employer benefits (some types of PPI do not and those complaints usually get upheld in that case)
3 - it was regular premium and not factored into the debt

The recent broker thought it odd I'd ever taken any when he couldn't find anything to sell me that would give me any further cover than what I had through work.

That actually gives me more concern about the current broker. Perhaps he is a tied agent or a multi-tie rather than independent or whole of market (note I am referring to the insurance side and not the mortgage. Most tied agents or multi-tied can be whole of market on mortgages but tied or multi-tie on insurance). Your employer benefits cease at a point. So, income protection to kick in beyond that point would be an obvious policy that is suitable. However, income protection plans are frequently not available via tied agents or multi-tied agents as they are mostly put in place by independents.

Insider101

Kidhands wrote: »

Hope someone can help advise me re a PPI reclaim.

I recently discovered when applying for mortgage through a new broker that I have considerable cover through work already, critical illness, redundancy etc. My previous mortgage advisor was part of an estate agents and no longer operates, nor do the company she worked for operate through the estate agent.

Playing devil's advocate for a second, surely your work told you what benefits they were offering you at some point? You would have known this (or at least been informed, even if you had forgotten). The mortgage broker wouldn't necessarily have known this.

Kidhands

Naively not. I started the job very young before I had a mortgage or any dependants to worry about and I was never retold beyond my starting the job that this existed should I need it. By the time it was of relevance I'd foolishly been paying monthly rates for cover I already had. It was only when I was told by this new broker that a lot of larger firms have this in place so check first (which I genuinely wish my previous broker had, and feel she should), that my HR department unearthed these documents and there it all was. It was young, ignorance and naivety sadly and then I've been at the company ever since so could easily have gone more years without knowing had he not asked me to check as I had so many other benefits with them.

I can see why this sounds silly. It is really. But was a genuine mistake.

Kidhands

Dunstonh - This is all really interesting. Thank you very much for taking the time, I will take a good look.

magpiecottage

Kidhands wrote: »

. I contacted a PPI claim advice co and they said the lender, or in my case several lenders (Halifax, Nationwide at least), are responsible. But this seemed a little unfair to me. Is this true?

No - just one of the reasons we say don't use such firms.

Kidhands wrote: »

I was never retold beyond my starting the job that this existed should I need it. By the time it was of relevance I'd foolishly been paying monthly rates for cover I already had. It was only when I was told by this new broker that a lot of larger firms have this in place so check first (which I genuinely wish my previous broker had, and feel she should), that my HR department unearthed these documents and there it all was.

if the broker had asked would you have given the correct answer. They are entitled to what their clients tell them at face valuie unless it is manifestly untrue

Kidhands

Yes, if she had have asked I would have checked with work. As I did when the subsequent broker asked me recently. At which point I would have seen what I already had in place and so would definitely have wanted her to know rather than start paying for policies I might not have needed. I certainly don't feel the broker misled me nor would I ever have been dishonest. Just wish she had advised me that it is possible some larger corporations have already some good cover in place so we would only need to substitute it with ant additional cover required. Would have saved me a lot of money.