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

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

In which case the adviser would have met the standards considered to be good practice at the time if you had not volunteered that an immediate undiscounted pension was available on redundancy

And if I have volunteered said information?

magpiecottage wrote: »

because it was an unusual provision (whether guaranteed or not).

I'm not clear what you might determine 'unusal'. However, the working population is around 30m - LGPS membership is around 5m (incl retired). Even using these figures loosely, around 15% of the working population are active/deferred LGPS members! Hardly unusual.

magpiecottage wrote: »

It does not apply to the NHS (I used to me a member) - although mental health nurses used to be able to retire at 55 anyway

I can't really comment on all the Public Sector pension schemes you have listed, but I can tell you LGPS is the biggest, NHS second biggest. This from the NHS pension scheme

Redundant employees who have reached the minimum pension age and are members of the NHS pension scheme can, if they wish, take their pension early without reduction in their pension benefits. In such case the employer will pay the NHS pension scheme a sum equivalent to the cost of paying the pension early.

So it would seem your facts on the NHS scheme are incorrect.

On that basis alone, and given that LGPS and NHS are the two biggest in the public sector, it is anything but unusual for Public Sector pensions to pay full unreduced pension at the qualifying age. Its likely some other listed one do also, but I have not checked.

magpiecottage wrote: »

That is your opinion but it also seems to contradict your (incorrect) view that the benefits were common knowledge.

As above, if in the region of near 15% of the workforce are in such pensions schemes then I think you need to update your common knowledge - pronto.

As I said before, I cannot remember the detail of the conversations, and if I have to prove it I can't. On the other hand, if there is no evidence that I did not tell them then perhaps I did - apart from the fact that it should be recognised anyway, given the numbers of workers in these schemes. Repeat - not unusual.

magpiecottage wrote: »

If I were assessing your case I would conclude that it was unsafe to uphold your complaint on the basis that the adviser ought to have known about the very specific redundancy benefits you thought your employer would provide because because you assumed it was common knowledge.

I dont have to assume, the figures speak for themselves.

magpiecottage wrote: »

If you told the adviser and he recommended the policy anyway, you may have a case but you have no evidence that you did. I would therefore look at the records of the firm. If they showed that you did, that would point in your favour but if not then your assertion that you "most likely did" would fail.

Well as per your own assessment, the FOS would probably slant towards the client in the event on any issue where there was equal doubt - i.e. if I say I did, they say I did not, but neither of us can prove it then, benefit of the doubt?

magpiecottage wrote: »

Arguably -

ooops, careful, just for a second there I thought you were agreeing with me on something!!!

magpiecottage wrote: »

but we still face the issue of whose fault it was that the adviser did not take account of it. As I say, unless you can show that you actually told the adviser it is more likely to be your fault than theirs.

Again, as above ...

magpiecottage wrote: »

I see three objections to this.

The first is that if 60% of the mortgage was to be paid off, that left 40% outstanding, for which a need would have been apparent to the adviser (if he was not told about the redundancy terms and I have seen no evidence that he was).

Well, if you put into the mix that we paid 25% deposit (to eliminate need for indemnity) thus we were only taking out a 75% mortgage in any case. If we paid 60% within a few months our total mortgage thereafter was in the region of 15-20%. It is also a flexible mortgage so we have the 85% offset - allowing us flexibility in the event of the unforeseen - aka your emergency fund.

magpiecottage wrote: »

The second is that, unless and until the other loan was cleared and the mortgage reduced, the full amount was due.

Agreed - but it was paid off precisely as planned and discussed.

magpiecottage wrote: »

The third is that there was nothing to stop you going back and reducing the cover when the amount of the loan (and thus the repayments) reduced. However, that amounts to a subsequent change in circumstances. The adviser cannot be held responsible for the consequences of that.

Equally given the circumstances and the existing coverage, perhaps it would have been better not to take out any PPI and if the plans did not work then we review our situation and take our insurance at that point if deemed necessary. Would that not have been equally valid information - that was not discussed from said adviser.

magpiecottage wrote: »

So, based on what I have seen, I would reject your complaint.

awww .... mannnnnnn

roonaldo

It's not people on the internet you need to convince, do your complaint and come back and tell us what the response is.

saver861

roonaldo wrote: »

It's not people on the internet you need to convince, do your complaint and come back and tell us what the response is.

Its not the people on the internet I am trying to convince - it is an information source only.

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

Its not the people on the internet I am trying to convince - it is an information source only.

Really - you seem determined to convince us.

However, the fact remains that you will first have to establish whether FOS has jurisdiction for a 2003 sale. If the person selling the policy was a tied agent of Standard Life, rather than an employee, it probably does not and the seller will not have to answer your complaint.

If FOS does have jurisdiction, you will have to show either that you told the adviser of the benefits correctly or that they should have known anyway. The former will depend on what, if any, records they hold. The latter is a matter of opinion although I suspect the view of FOS would be that it was not reasonable to expect them to.

This always assumes that the sale was indeed advised.


So I agree with roonaldo.

Put in your complaint and tell us what happens. FOS may find something that we are not aware of and find in your favour but, based on what you have told us, I am not persuaded that it is more likely than not that the seller was at fault. So as things stand, I do not think your complaint can be held at fault.

I have also seen stronger cases than yours rejected by FOS.

saver861

magpiecottage wrote: »

Really - you seem determined to convince us.

Nope - not in the least, for the most obvious reason, there is no benefit to convincing anyone on here of anything, simply because they cannot influence the outcome of my case. Hypothetically speaking, if I did fully convince everyone on here - it measures zero in terms of the people making the decision.

I find the discussion immensely interesting and such discussion is the nature of forums, as in this case with many useful posts. Personally I like to extrapolate on points made, maybe because I don't agree or don't understand. Sometimes there are contributors that might be of a more dominant nature and the inference is, if the information seeker does not fall into compliance and agreement with information provided, it may not be accepted gracefully by some contributors.

One of the interesting aspects is that most of the discussion centered on my putting forward my case to the FOS. Also, most of it focused on the reasons why my complaint would fail. There was little assessment on what my current position was. Equally, there was little discussion on what would assist or help my case to succeed. OK, I hear a groan at this point - "but there is nothing in your case to succeed". Maybe.

In actuality, my intentions at this stage are to take the matter up with the bank. Utilsing some of the information from here and elsewhere, I will make my case as coherently and succinctly as possible. Depending on the outcome from the bank, I will determine my next move. At this stage, I am unlikely to take it to the FOS. I would only approach the Ombudsman on any issue if I thought I had a greater than 50% chance of winning it. Hence the reason I have only ever approached the ombudsman once.

I would say I have a 95% 'success rate' in taking up issues with companies, i.e. in some form of apology, acceptance of liability, gestures of recompense etc. Therefore, if I am unable to convince any reputable company that they are responsible for some infringement, then it is unlikely I will be able to convince an Ombudsman. Thus it is the same for this case.

The ethos of MSE and other similar, is to empower the consumer, to take issue and ask the questions of the suppliers. I have been doing that long before MSE was even heard of.

magpiecottage wrote: »

I have also seen stronger cases than yours rejected by FOS.

There is a good chance you wont see mine rejected!!

magpiecottage

Gone into DNFTT mode.

-taff

I went into DNGAS mode much earlier.......

gik

Have read both threads and really don't believe you have a viable complaint. But I expect my opinion will like others be discounted. You have been given sound advice by knowledgeable people and discounted it. You perhaps really do need to get a job.

saver861

gik wrote: »

Have read both threads and really don't believe you have a viable complaint. But I expect my opinion will like others be discounted. You have been given sound advice by knowledgeable people and discounted it. You perhaps really do need to get a job.

But thats the point - I've said many times, some excellent points raised by posters. Nothing was discounted by me and I tried to respond to all posters as much as I could.

This is an information source not a deciding source. Nobody could or should advise definitively on such a forum, most definitely not those who are in the profession. I have decided to take the matter to the bank and they will decide on its viability. If every case were black and white there would be no need for debate or consultancy.

I can work out what DNGAS means - not sure what DNFTT means but guess along similar lines. That's all cool. I'm sure there are many disinterested, no doubt there will be others who found the info provided useful. Thus each to their own

saver861

Well now - I obtained some further information today that puts a somewhat different slant on things.

Even though I took the mortgage out with Std Life and rang the telephone numbers on Std Life documentation, it seems when taking out the MPPI, I go through directly to Pinnacle Insurance! News to me.

Pinnacle tell me I rang them and everything was done over the phone - which was basically them taking my basic details, e.g. name, address etc and asking some elegibility questions from a phone script and hey presto, I'm insured. Pinnacle tell me they have no information regarding my mortgage and the two are entirely separate. Wow.

On that basis, a one eyed Albanian would see there is no claim in terms of mis-selling MPPI. It would be a non-advised policy (getting good with the terminology too ) which I answer the basic questions and they send the policy documents. Entirely my responsibility to ensure it suits my needs - existing coverage, other policies etc etc all irrelevant.

I get all of that. It's less clear, how taking out a mortgage, and a MPPI all at the same time, all part of the same process, the two can be distinctly separate. So, it would seem that regardless of what the mortgage adviser told me, e.g. for the purpose of example, even if he insisted that I take out MPPI, the actual process of taking out MPPI was separate and thus no connection, no claim.

I checked my file today and all the documentation is Std Life produced re MPPI. Obviously my reading of it now is that Std Life sent their mortgage customers to Pinnacle. Std Life presumably get their commission, Pinnacle get the business, and the customer gets confused, this one at least!!

So Pinnacle tell me I need to speak to Std Life if I have any issue with the way the mortgage or any MPPI advice was handled. Of course, Std Life don't do mortgages any more and these are now with Barclays. Contacted Barclays to try to ascertain the procedure that took place at the time of taking out the mortgage and MPPI at Std Life. The nice lady at Barclays keeps telling me there is no PPI under my name or address - which there wont be of course - but at said time, the kettle seemed the better option to interact further

All straight forward then ...