MPPI - Do I have a case or no - Thread Deleted :(

saver861

Message from the MSE Forum team:

Apologies but your thread "MPPI - Do I have a case or no" has been removed accidentally.

We are more than happy for you to re-post it.

That's a pity but no worries team! Such is life. The thread was near exhausted in terms of the original question in any event, but immensely enlightening in terms of posts and contributions.

As it happens I have the last posts in my broswer which I'll respond to here in this thread.

dunstonh

That is a shame as despite the differing views, I thought it contained excellent information that would benefit other readers.

saver861

@ magpiecottage

There are several flaws in your argument. The first is quite simply that there really was a guarantee then your employer would not have been able to increase it from 50 to 55. Clearly there never was such a guarantee.

In terms of your argument about 'guarantee' I think I have a better understanding of what you are trying to say - but I think you are still misguided.

Using an example, assume I am 55 today and my LGPS (Local Government Pesnion Scheme) states that I will get full unreduced pension in the event of redundancy from the age of 55. In that event, I would not - 'would not' take out redundancy coverage.

Your point is that it is 'not guaranteed' because the rules can change. So, following that through, lets assume, the LGPS body meets next week and decides to raise the redundancy pension access to 60. In that case, there would be a period before the change is implemented - at least two years. Therefore, at 57 I would no longer have pension access in the case of redundancy.

That's as you state 'no guarantee'. Clearly though, in that case I would re-assess my insurance requirements prior to termination of the existing policy and take out redundancy cover if I felt necessary.

It would be senseless for me to take out redundancy cover at the outset to cover the hypothetical situation of the redundancy benefits changing.

For that reason - I believe your assertion of 'no guarantee' is misguided.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

That is a shame as despite the differing views, I thought it contained excellent information that would benefit other readers.

Yikes - we are agreeing on something!! But yes, for the reasons you state, it had differing views and thus very informative. It had over 1000 so it would seem a few people at least had an interest.

saver861

@ magpiecottage

The last reply I had before the thread was deleted was from you.

That is a standard reply. The helpline is manned by individuals with absolutely no relevant qualification or knowledge of these matters.

I think you are being a little disingenuous with your assertion of said individuals. I spoke to two people, one more senior and the purpose of these very initial calls was for me to get 'vibe reactions' rather than detail.

By contrast, I hold the Mortgage Advice Qualification from the Chartered Insurance Institute. I also hold the Advanced Certificate in Mortgage Advice and Practice, Certificate in Regulated General Insurance and Certificate in Regulated Complaints Planning from the University College of the Institute of Financial Services.

Impressive Its for this reason I would expect much greater depth of knowledge from someone with such qualifications - however, it does not make said person always right!!!

You had six months' full sick pay entitlement. After that your income would have significantly reduced.

Ok - let me summarize, and then you (or anybody else) tell me whether we had sufficient coverage or not?
Two of us, OH and I - no children or family dependents - both with 12 months salary for illness and accident - both with approx 9 months take home redundancy payment if made redundant- both with Income Protection kicking in at 12 months - £30K + savings/investments - 60% of mortgage paid off after first three months on sale of previous house, leaving 70% equity.

Are you really telling me that would not be considered sufficient coverage and MPPI would still be a necessity??? It does not, of course, decree whether we took the insurance out as an added luxury or due to implied necessity thus potential mis-selling. Put another way, if I were the bank employee, I would want to make clear record that some discussion centered on the client being informed of assessing the need of PPI for necessity in such circumstances.

For the reasons I have given, you have failed to demonstrate that there was ever any guarantee, in the legally accepted sense, that the benefit would have remained available until such time as it was needed.

As stated in previous post above - I think you are misguided on this. Quite simply I would take out my insurance based on the law and policy as it stands re: pension access - if that changed I would re-assess my insurance requirements.

"The Ombudsman may dismiss a complaint without considering its merits if he considers that:
(1) the complainant has not suffered (or is unlikely to suffer) financial loss, material distress or material inconvenience; or
(2) the complaint is frivolous or vexatious; or
(3) the complaint clearly does not have any reasonable prospect of success".


Obviously he cannot dismiss any complaint with having first assessed it. If someone has routinely complained to the Ombudsman and further complaints are subjective, it is very likely to be dismissed. However, for the purpose of extreme example, say a complaint came in that Sky had taken dual DD's from a customer in error, and failed to return the money. Regardless of how many frivolous complaints someone has made previously, the Ombudsman cannot dismiss this latest complaint.

So I would expect to defend your complaint quite easily. That is not to say that you would necessarily be unsuccesful. Standard Life and Cardif Pinnacle probably pay their staff considerably less than I charge my clients and will get a commensurate skillset.

hmm ... I think you might be confusing skill sets with salary scales. There are many people in lesser salaried positions with higher IQ's than others in higher salaried positions. Whilst I could not possibly judge your ability to handle a case for me from this forum, I can tell you, the fees you charge would not be an deciding factor either way!

I also remember FOS offering a colleague a job at a salary for which he said would not even tempt him to go past the office where we worked to the railway station, let alone commute to Canary Wharf.

There you go again .. tut tut Magpie ...

As Moneyinptitude says, though, it is clear that you are determined to pursue your complaint come what may so there is little point in continuing this thread.

Well - as it happened - the thread got deleted!!! In any event, much was discussed on the original thread and I found it immensely informative from all the posts - yours and others. Your statement quoting Moneyineptitude, suggests that the object is to stop me from making a claim - as you don't agree it has merit. I see the object of the forum as a means that I can make a more informed judgement. I will post later on what I think I have learned and what I intend to do.

[Deleted User]

saver861 wrote: »

Your statement quoting Moneyineptitude, suggests that the object is to stop me from making a claim - as you don't agree it has merit. I see the object of the forum as a means that I can make a more informed judgement. I will post later on what I think I have learned and what I intend to do.

You are free to make any complaint you like to whomever you like, nowhere did one of my posts say otherwise!

My issue on the deleted thread was that you appeared to want to dismiss any and all advice given and so didn't need any advice.

Now I'll take my leave of THIS thread...

saver861

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You are free to make any complaint you like to whomever you like, nowhere did one of my posts say otherwise!

My issue on the deleted thread was that you appeared to want to dismiss any and all advice given and so didn't need any advice.

Now I'll take my leave of THIS thread...

Not in the least - I have no complaint whatsoever, even bemused why you would think so! The reference was from Magpie's earlier post, which I presumed that was a conversation between you and Magpie. As the thread is now deleted you will be unable to see the post, but the italic is a direct copy and paste from Magpies post.

As you say, on the previous deleted thread I responded to your points accordingly and have no issue otherwise. It would appear you have been misquoted therefore, either way, I'm totally cool.. Bon vogage from this thread also

saver861

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

The italic does not quote me directly, it merely gives the other poster's interpretation of what I said..

Yep - and therefore it seems that is how Magpie interpreted what you said .. it seems you have been misinterpreted...either way not a problem to me.

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

Whilst I could not possibly judge your ability to handle a case for me from this forum, I can tell you, the fees you charge would not be an deciding factor either way!
.

You clearly have not read my signature.

I have now checked the Cardif Pinnacle summary of cover. It lists a number of benefits the first of which say,s "Protects your monthly mortgage payments (and associated bills if chosen) if you are
unable to work following accident, sickness, hospitalisation or involuntary unemployment."

Note the word "involuntary".


On the other hand, it also says:

"No benefit is payable:
• that arises or you are notified of within 60
days of the start date if you applied for this
insurance when taking out your mortgage or
within 60 days of your mortgage completion
date;
• that arises or you are notified of within 120
days of the start date if you applied for this
insurance more than 60 days after your
mortgage completion date.
If, immediately prior to the start date, you
have an existing policy providing cover in the
event of disability or unemployment with a
company other then us, and that policy is
cancelled in place of this one, the previous
two exclusions will not apply;
• for the first 30 consecutive days of
unemployment;
• if you receive notice (oral or written) of
unemployment within the initial exclusion
period (as stated in your schedule of cover) of
the policy start date;
• if unemployment is a normal or seasonal
occurrence, or follows a period of casual or
temporary work;
• if at the start date of this policy, you are aware
of impending unemployment;
• if unemployment occurs after the expected
end of a fixed-term contract (please see
Special Note under Section Settling A Claim
of the policy booklet);
• if unemployment occurs whilst working
outside the United Kingdom, the Channel
Islands or the Isle of Man;
• for voluntary redundancy or misconduct;
• if you are self-employed and have not ceased
trading.
Full details of all Unemployment Exclusions can
be found in Section headed The Cover ‘What We
Do Not insure’ on page 6 of the policy booklet."

In theory that could give rise to a complaint against Cardif Pinnacle because retirement is not included in the list but I suspect it is in the oolicy booklet and if you have chosen not to work again that does seem to be voluntary.

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

You clearly have not read my signature.

I have and my position still stands ....

magpiecottage wrote: »

I have now checked the Cardif Pinnacle summary of cover. It lists a number of benefits the first of which say,s "Protects your monthly mortgage payments (and associated bills if chosen) if you are
unable to work following accident, sickness, hospitalisation or involuntary unemployment."

Note the word "involuntary".

Yes - in the main that means to exclude voluntary redundancy.

magpiecottage wrote: »

In theory that could give rise to a complaint against Cardif Pinnacle because retirement is not included in the list but I suspect it is in the oolicy booklet and if you have chosen not to work again that does seem to be voluntary.

Well yes - it is something that I might be able to add to the complaint so that's a fair point.

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

in the main that means to exclude voluntary redundancy.

But if it was only intended to say mean voluntary redundancy, it would have said so.

Well yes - it is something that I might be able to add to the complaint so that's a fair point.

What - because it is in your favour (if a little tenuous)?

What I don't understand is why, if you believed you would be entitled to an ill health early retirement that would be sufficient for your needs, you took out the policy. Would you jump off a cliff just because somebody recommended it?