Are you better off letting a third party deal with your claim?

susi

My daughter tried to claim her ppi back and did it directly through the ombudsman. Her case was rejected because her ppi was sold to her through her mortgage advisor and although he insisted to both her and myself on more than one occasion the mortgage could not proceed without this it seems she didnt have a case as Legal and General (who the policy was with) had done no wrong. We have heard of cases where they have gone through these "no win no fee" companies and have got thousands back with just a stab in the dark effort as they werent even sure if they were mis sold. I feel a little upset about this as my daughter was definately mis sold and we argued the case at the time but she was definately told the mortgage wouldnt proceed without it. Now Im begining to wonder if she may have been better to go through a third party rather than directly with the ombudsman. Has anyone else had a similar experience? Im guessing that the ombudsman is final and its case closed now :-(

Brokerwise

susi wrote: »

My daughter tried to claim her ppi back and did it directly through the ombudsman. Her case was rejected because her ppi was sold to her through her mortgage advisor and although he insisted to both her and myself on more than one occasion the mortgage could not proceed without this it seems she didnt have a case as Legal and General (who the policy was with) had done no wrong. We have heard of cases where they have gone through these "no win no fee" companies and have got thousands back with just a stab in the dark effort as they werent even sure if they were mis sold. I feel a little upset about this as my daughter was definately mis sold and we argued the case at the time but she was definately told the mortgage wouldnt proceed without it. Now Im begining to wonder if she may have been better to go through a third party rather than directly with the ombudsman. Has anyone else had a similar experience? Im guessing that the ombudsman is final and its case closed now :-(

You do not go directly via the Ombudsman for ppi claims

dunstonh

Her case was rejected because her ppi was sold to her through her mortgage advisor and although he insisted to both her and myself on more than one occasion the mortgage could not proceed without this it seems she didnt have a case as Legal and General (who the policy was with) had done no wrong.

That sounds like a reasonable rejection. L&G had no liability for the sale so any complaint to L&G was destined for failure.

We have heard of cases where they have gone through these "no win no fee" companies and have got thousands back with just a stab in the dark effort as they werent even sure if they were mis sold. I feel a little upset about this as my daughter was definately mis sold and we argued the case at the time but she was definately told the mortgage wouldnt proceed without it. Now Im begining to wonder if she may have been better to go through a third party rather than directly with the ombudsman.

The claims companies use the same free of charge complaints process and use the ombudsman if required. All they do is charge you a fee if the complaint succeeds. As the complaint was correctly rejected in your daughters case (as she complained to the wrong company) then the result would not be any difference whether she used a claims company or not.

Your daughter didnt go direct to the ombudsman anyway. She first complained to L&G who rejected the complaint. She then for some strange reason referred it to the ombudsman. I dont know why she did that as if L&G told her they did not sell it and were not liable for the sale, you cant see what would be gained by going to the FOS.

Im guessing that the ombudsman is final and its case closed now :-(

It is and is quite correct to be. Although why did she not complain to the correct company?

That said, most mortgage adviser complaints fail anyway (adviser complaints on PPi only account for around 1% of PPI complaints as well). Plus, most MPPI complaints fail too. She doesnt appear to have a strong complaint as it is an unprovable allegation at best. However, if the mortgage adviser required an insurance purchase to allow them to give free mortgage advice then that is allowed. So, in reality, it is a really really weak complaint that is unlikely to succeed even if she complains to the correct company.

PlutoinCapricorn

MSE helps people to do things themselves:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-loan-insurance

susi

It was through a post on here that I was advised to go to contact L&G then go to FOC and we just followed the procedure and used the template on here and took it from there. I assumed that if she didnt want the PPI and objected at the time but was still forced to have it if she wanted to go ahead with the mortgage then it was mis sold. I have obviously got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line

dunstonh

It was through a post on here that I was advised to go to contact L&G then go to FOC and we just followed the procedure and used the template on here and took it from there.

edit: I checked back on your posts on this subject: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3197980

It appears that the estate agent is no longer in business and the suggestion from the FSCS was to try the insurer. This would be in case the seller was an agent of L&G. However, L&G have said that it wasnt their agent that sold it. So, there is no-one to complain to. L&G are not liable. The FOS cannot rule on a case that is pre-regulation and the firm is no longer trading. The FSCS cannot take on a pre-regulation case. It's game over.

I assumed that if she didnt want the PPI and objected at the time but was still forced to have it if she wanted to go ahead with the mortgage then it was mis sold. I have obviously got the wrong end of the stick somewhere along the line

Whilst that is a potential mis-sale reason, it is also one of the weakest reasons going as your daughter almost certainly has no evidence to back up her allegation.

Also, if she was actually required to have an insurance product to get the free mortgage advice then it is not a mis-sale. It is when she is lied to that it is but as above, proving it was told is near on impossible.

However, this is all irrelevant. It is pre-regulation and the firm that sold it no longer exists.