Northern Rock MPPI

overhang

I have been reading this forum for some time and some of the advice given has been very helpful and has assisted me in making several PPI complaints all of which have had a successful outcome.

I recently complained regarding the sale of a Northern Rock mortgage PPI (Cardiff Pinnacle) which was sold to me as part of the mortgage sale process. I am pleased to say that my complaint was upheld and I have today received a refund of over £2K for premiums paid between 2000 and 2006.My complaint focussed on the fact that during the sale which was done via telephone there was no attempt made by the salesperson to establish whether the product was suitable for my needs. My employer provided 6 months full sick pay and 4 months half sick pay at the time. Also I was not advised that I could not claim for 60 days or that the policy was for only half the interest part of the mortgage only (joint policy with wife). If I can't claim for 2 months, and my employer covers me for 10 months, and the policy only pays for 12 months then what is the point, I would not be able to claim so its basically useless.

Some commentators on this forum suggest that there is little chance of success with MPPI complaints and I just wanted to post a success story to indicate that it is possible. I also had a similar policy upheld with Barclay's on similar grounds for a previous mortgage to this.

As long as you believe that you were not told the full details of the policy exclusions and a financial assessment of your ability to pay in the event of sickness/redundancy etc was not correctly carried out then I would say you have every right to complain and to be appropriately compensated.

dunstonh

My complaint focussed on the fact that during the sale which was done via telephone there was no attempt made by the salesperson to establish whether the product was suitable for my needs.

non advised sales have lower requirements than advised sales.

Also I was not advised that I could not claim for 60 days or that the policy was for only half the interest part of the mortgage only (joint policy with wife).

Strange how you agree to something without knowing what it is you are buying. Both things are key facts on the product.

If I can't claim for 2 months, and my employer covers me for 10 months, and the policy only pays for 12 months then what is the point, I would not be able to claim so its basically useless.

You can claim on the policy. Unlike some other types of PPI, MPPi pays out in addition.

Some commentators on this forum suggest that there is little chance of success with MPPI complaints and I just wanted to post a success story to indicate that it is possible.

The position is that most MPPI complaints fail. Not all MPPI complaints.

As long as you believe that you were not told the full details of the policy exclusions and a financial assessment of your ability to pay in the event of sickness/redundancy etc was not correctly carried out then I would say you have every right to complain and to be appropriately compensated.

You have no evidence to support a number of those allegations and a complaint would rarely be upheld on that basis. More likely in your case you got lucky with an auto payout given the size of the payment.

overhang

Just the sort of response I was expecting. I'm waiting for the other two posters who reply in a similar way to chip in any moment now.


Firstly, you seem to have a lot of statistical information regarding acceptance / rejection etc. Is this up to date or from when you had the misfortune to work for one of the banks guilty of mis-selling years ago?


Are you suggesting that all the millions of people mis-sold PPI products that were not aware of the full terms and conditions are stupid? I think you will find it was the deliberate attempts made by the financial industry to hide certain conditions in the small print that is the culprit here.


My complaint was not auto-upheld, they phoned twice for more info and sent forms out after my initial complaint so I did not "get lucky" as you suggest, I just got refunded what I was due.


With regard to paying out in addition - in 2006 (just before I cancelled the useless policy in question) I was made redundant and I had cause to make a claim. I was advised that they would not pay out for 60 days plus the length of redundancy payment which in my case was 4 months wages. I would not have been able to claim for 6 months. I also had to provide countless forms and proof of job searching and benefits etc before they would even look at the claim. Luckily I got a job within 2 months so a claim was not necessary.


My evidence is based on personal experience. I do not work for a financial institution guilty of mis-selling nor am I a financial advisor wishing to line my pockets, nor do I work undercover for the FSA or any banks, just a normal citizen.


As previously stated, my advice to those who have similar circumstances to mine is to claim. You have nothing to lose except a bit of time and a stamp and everything to gain.

dunstonh

Firstly, you seem to have a lot of statistical information regarding acceptance / rejection etc. Is this up to date or from when you had the misfortune to work for one of the banks guilty of mis-selling years ago?

The figures get published periodically.

re you suggesting that all the millions of people mis-sold PPI products that were not aware of the full terms and conditions are stupid?

Not all no. However, some would be.

My complaint was not auto-upheld, they phoned twice for more info and sent forms out after my initial complaint so I did not "get lucky" as you suggest, I just got refunded what I was due.

You wouldnt know if it was or it wasnt. Nothing you have said suggests any reason it would be upheld as they are unprovable allegations. Given the low amount, it is in the auto payout range on their internal scoring system. NRAM is a bit of a soft touch.

With regard to paying out in addition - in 2006 (just before I cancelled the useless policy in question) I was made redundant and I had cause to make a claim. I was advised that they would not pay out for 60 days plus the length of redundancy payment which in my case was 4 months wages. I would not have been able to claim for 6 months. I also had to provide countless forms and proof of job searching and benefits etc before they would even look at the claim. Luckily I got a job within 2 months so a claim was not necessary.

Redundancy pay has no impact on MPPI. You are mistaken. Perhaps you are referring to payment in lieu of notice.

My evidence is based on personal experience. I do not work for a financial institution guilty of mis-selling nor am I a financial advisor wishing to line my pockets, nor do I work undercover for the FSA or any banks, just a normal citizen.

Clearly with a chip on your shoulder given the way you have phrased that. It is a shame that you lack the ability to consider the balance by only focusing on negatives. The fact is that most MPPI complaints fail (both at firm and at the FOS). That does not mean all and no-one has ever said all

roonaldo

overhang wrote: »

Are you suggesting that all the millions of people mis-sold PPI products that were not aware of the full terms and conditions are stupid? I think you will find it was the deliberate attempts made by the financial industry to hide certain conditions in the small print that is the culprit here.

Don't mistake single premium PPI or useless credit card PPI with mortgage protection. This a monthly PPI is to protect your home. It is still considered good advice to take PPI alongside a mortgage. Dunstonh is correct, the PPI would pay out in addition to sick pay.

overhang

I have to be honest and say that at the time I took this policy out I was a young graduate recently married buying our first home and I am guilty of not reading the fine print or asking the right questions due to lack of financial knowledge. This does not suggest stupidity, its just that my vocation in life is different from those involved in the financial field, an area I have little interest in.


The letter I received from NRAM states;


"I have considered all available evidence to enable me to review your complaint"


It goes on to say;


"On the basis of my findings, I am not satisfied that it would be fair or reasonable to decline your claim for a refund of premiums paid on this policy. I confirm that on this basis I agree to uphold your complaint"


Are you suggesting that they have not actually investigated this and have no findings or basis to uphold and that they auto-upheld the complaint? If this is the case then it would be another example of a financial institution misleading the customer. If they say they have investigated I expect them to have done so.


As previously stated, I made a valid complaint and got a refund. They could not disprove the basis of my complaint. If I had listened to some of the negative comments on here regarding MPPI I would be financially worse off. So paradoxically, had I listened to the comments of the financial advisor I would be a poorer man.

addedvaluebob

Well done overhang. There is too much supposition on here based on not knowing anything about the poster's financial circumstances or the actual policy that was sold at the time, and whilst dunston is right that they had a lower requirement than regulated sales the adviser still had a duty of care even if it wasn't written down in the rulebook.

Keyfacts were not always given or explained to customers, some advisers were more interested in hitting target than doing what was right and some of them are still out there even now.

If anyone thinks they have been mis-sold MPPI because they now have more knowledge and understanding then they should go for it and not be put off by negative posters

dunstonh

If anyone thinks they have been mis-sold MPPI because they now have more knowledge and understanding then they should go for it and not be put off by negative posters

It is not negative. It is being realistic. Most loan and credit card PPI is refunded with upheld complaints. It wasnt a good product and it was mis-sold in the majority of cases. With MPPI it is not the same situation. Yes it could be mis-sold but it was not in the majority cases and most complaints do not succeed. Today, MPPI is one of only two types of PPI that is still retailed. So, it is wrong to treat it the same as loan and credit card.

As previously stated, I made a valid complaint and got a refund. They could not disprove the basis of my complaint.

And you could not prove it. So, that part of the complaint would not be expected to be upheld.

So paradoxically, had I listened to the comments of the financial advisor I would be a poorer man.

That is how insurance works. If you never claim on the policy you end up worse off. If you claim on the policy you end up better off.

overhang

I have to disagree, it is being negative. You are saying that the chances of a complaint on MPPI being upheld is negligible. You mention 99% rejection in one of your previous posts.


I have been refunded on this policy with Northern Rock from 2000 - 2006 and on a previous policy with Barclays for a lesser amount from 1998 to 2000 (I switched suppliers). By your reckoning the chances of that happening are 1 in 10000.


To all those wishing to complain regarding the sale of MPPI I would say do you research, make sure your complaint is well written, raise as many valid points as possible and do not restrict yourself. If you have 10 concerns regarding the sale, raise all 10.


You claim to be a financial advisor yet you are indirectly suggesting to people who believe they were mis-sold a product not to complain even though you know full well that they have nothing to lose by making a complaint and could in fact end up thousands better off. This does not sound like good advice to me.


Think of it positively - it keeps the thousands of claim handlers in work for longer!

dunstonh

I have to disagree, it is being negative.

It is providing balance and information.

You are saying that the chances of a complaint on MPPI being upheld is negligible. You mention 99% rejection in one of your previous posts.

I have said no such thing.

By your reckoning the chances of that happening are 1 in 10000.

I have not said that.

You claim to be a financial advisor yet you are indirectly suggesting to people who believe they were mis-sold a product not to complain even though you know full well that they have nothing to lose by making a complaint and could in fact end up thousands better off. This does not sound like good advice to me.

I have not said that either.

Anything else you wish to make up about what I have said?

addedvaluebob

I am all for balance and information but far too often the 'you're going to lose scenario' is put across by posters. None of us, including me, know the personal circumstances, financial details or policy that was sold and yet time and again they are told it's not worth bothering or if they do win then they just got lucky.

Its the way the message is received, not the intent behind the poster, positive or negative.

As for FOS, many of the adjudicators and quite a few of the Ombudsmen have little understanding of financial services products and policies and are contractors on poor day rates that do not attract quality people. Financial advisers have to have level 4 QCF qualifications and yet these cases are often reviewed by people with a lesser qualification or no technical knowledge at all.