Royal Sun Alliance Misselling

gingerlee

I took out a mortgage with Natwest in 1999, and have just had my PPI claim, for a policy with Royal sun alliance rejected due to lack of evidence.

I was told I had to have this PPI policy to ensure I got the mortgage and as it was my first mortgage I signed it - I was given the advice from an "independent financial adviser" so I believed it.

When the claim was reject a year ago I took it to the FOS, who got back to me a couple of days ago rejecting my claim, they say that although they don't not believe that I was told I needed the insurance to get the mortgage there was not enough evidence to support my argument, I am appealing it now....

During my call with the FOS I discovered that the financial adviser wasn't independent - he actually worked for Royal Sun Alliance as he worked for William H Brown Estate Agents, who are a division of Sequence homes, who are owned by Royal Sun Alliance!!!

Has anyone else had this experience or can anyone offer any advice??

[Deleted User]

You appear to be wasting your time looking for mis-selling "reasons" which are not relevant. It doesn't matter who your mortgage advisor worked for, you have complained about the PPI policy being mis-sold..

I very much doubt your "appeal" against the Ombudsman's initial adjudication will be upheld.

gingerlee

Thanks for your reply - I am just frustrated that an adviser can call himself independent while working for an insurance company and then telling customers that his company policies are required in order for someone to get their own mortgage.

It is misselling of the highest order but the FOS seem happy for it to happen.

Not sure if I should name and shame the adviser as he is still working "independently"

dunstonh

I was told I had to have this PPI policy to ensure I got the mortgage and as it was my first mortgage I signed it - I was given the advice from an "independent financial adviser" so I believed it.

Two things here.

1 - what evidence do you have to support your allegation?
2 - Mortgage brokers and IFAs often require you to purchase insurance through them to get the free mortgage advice. A very common model and its allowed. The insurance has to be suitable, thats all.

When the claim was reject a year ago I took it to the FOS, who got back to me a couple of days ago rejecting my claim, they say that although they don't not believe that I was told I needed the insurance to get the mortgage there was not enough evidence to support my argument, I am appealing it now....

No overturn going to come there. Without evidence you could be telling the truth or you could be telling lies.

During my call with the FOS I discovered that the financial adviser wasn't independent - he actually worked for Royal Sun Alliance as he worked for William H Brown Estate Agents, who are a division of Sequence homes, who are owned by Royal Sun Alliance!!!

Its irrelevant. Research over the years has found that many people believe their advisers to be an IFA when they are not. There was one a few years back that asked people who had seen tied agents and found half thought they saw an IFA. The main issue was people didnt realise the difference.

Has anyone else had this experience or can anyone offer any advice??

Its a common thing. No evidence of wrongdoing and no other failure means a rejection.

The FOS reject most MPPI complaints and advisers only make up 1% of PPI complaints (most of those rejected). Its not seen as an adviser issue. Nothing you have said suggests any chance of success.

It is misselling of the highest order but the FOS seem happy for it to happen.

The FOS are not saying any such thing. They are asking you for evidence to support your allegations.

You stole my wallet. Give my money back. I dont need evidence as I should be automatically believed.

Not sure if I should name and shame the adviser as he is still working "independently"

It should be noted that that Independent applies to investment class business. An IFA can offer a limited panel or even just one company for insurance and still be an IFA.

What evidence do you have that he is misrepresenting himself? No evidence and naming his is libel.

sun73

gingerlee wrote: »

I took out a mortgage with Natwest in 1999, and have just had my PPI claim, for a policy with Royal sun alliance rejected due to lack of evidence.

I was told I had to have this PPI policy to ensure I got the mortgage and as it was my first mortgage I signed it - I was given the advice from an "independent financial adviser" so I believed it.

When the claim was reject a year ago I took it to the FOS, who got back to me a couple of days ago rejecting my claim, they say that although they don't not believe that I was told I needed the insurance to get the mortgage there was not enough evidence to support my argument, I am appealing it now....

During my call with the FOS I discovered that the financial adviser wasn't independent - he actually worked for Royal Sun Alliance as he worked for William H Brown Estate Agents, who are a division of Sequence homes, who are owned by Royal Sun Alliance!!!

Has anyone else had this experience or can anyone offer any advice??

Just out of interest if this was your first mortgage, were you single with no dependants at the time? If not, is the only reason you complained about the ppi that you were informed you had to take it out to get the mortgage?

roonaldo

gingerlee wrote: »

During my call with the FOS I discovered that the financial adviser wasn't independent - he actually worked for Royal Sun Alliance as he worked for William H Brown Estate Agents, who are a division of Sequence homes, who are owned by Royal Sun Alliance!!!

Clearly not independent then!

There is nothing wrong with having a monthly PPI for your mortgage, which is why it was rejected.

magpiecottage

I don't think FOS actually has jurisdiction - if RSA cares to fight it.

As I remember, Royal Life (which later merged with Sun Alliance) bought William H Brown in the 1980s.

The purpose was so that it would become a tied agent of Royal Life - and sell its endowments. So Royal Life, and later RSA, became responsible for those sales. However, although it owned William H Brown, they were separate legal entities so that in respect of mortgages and general insurance there was no such transfer of liabilities.

In theory, you could complain that William H Brown contravened the Mortgage Code in respect of the PPI sale but the rules state that FOS only has jurisdiction in that regard if William H Brown later became regulated directly by the FSA, rather than as an Appointed Representative of somebody else.

So RSA would be within its rights to say "we didn't sell this and are not responsible for the sale".

[Deleted User]

magpiecottage wrote: »

I don't think FOS actually has jurisdiction - if RSA cares to fight it.

Why would RSA fight against FOS ruling in their favour?

magpiecottage

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Why would RSA fight against FOS ruling in their favour?

They won't now.

I think they could have saved themselves a £850 fee and a lot of hassle if they had been more on the ball, though.