Northern Rock MPPI

saver861

I would agree with the gist of the op speaking from my own experience on here. However, the forum has to be recognised for what it is - a public forum. In reality, it is not possible for anyone to make a correct assessment for many of the problems posted, not least due to the ambiguity of the written word. Equally posts and threads have snippets of the facts so its not possible to see the whole case holistically.

Certainly there is a difference between CC PPI and Mortgage PPI - no question of that. MPPI is a good product and can and do keep people in a home when difficult circumstances arise.

However, the impression does come across on this forum that MPPI has a minimum to none chance of being mis-sold or a claim upheld. In my own case, it is my belief backed up by facts that we had more than sufficient coverage not to need MPPI. However, the bank still sold it to us with our mortgage and they will have had their commission out of the sale!! While the final decision to take out the MPPI is mine, if I was unduly influenced to do so with insufficient consideration of the facts, then that must be in the realms of a mis-sale. Though posters on here concluded I do not have a valid complaint none of them were successful in convincing me. Thus I proceeded with a claim.

In terms of the op's point on the redundancy pay, I would agree with the other posters that the amount of redundancy pay does not impact on an unemployment claim. My policy will pay out for 12 months after a 60 day wait period from the first date of unemployment. Pay in lieu is considered as employed time.

The op said he was not told there was a 60 day wait period - I can understand that as I was told there was a 30 day wait period. I got a letter two years into the policy telling me that was an 'error' and it is 60 days!! So, someone trying to make a sale might well have omitted this little fact - though it will be in the policy document somewhere no doubt.

magpiecottage

[

overhang wrote: »

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.

Not correct. If I remember correctly, Cardif Pinnacle pays out in addition to sick pay. However, if it does not then the 12 months would start when you became eligible to receive benefits, not 12 months from when you fell ill.

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 DunstonH says the amounts involved can trigger automatic payouts. This is because, win or lose, the lender will have to pay FOS £850. The cost of fighting it can exceed the £2000 paid to you so it could easily be a commercial decision not to fight it.

overhang wrote: »

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.

That does not really stack up. Why would a graduate, in any subject, not bother to find out what they were buying?

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.

It is a standard paragraph. They have copied and pasted it in. The person writing it will get bonuses depending on how many cases they do (and will get sacked if they don't do enough).

I know this because I have done this sort of work in the past.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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.

Actually, the sale of mortgage PPI in 2000 was governed by the Mortgage Code. It advocated selling monthly premium PPI - to the point of getting borrowers to sign a disclaimer if they refused it.

However, few working for lenders now know this.

Keyfacts were not always given or explained to customers

Or required on 2000 when the OP bought his policy.

some advisers were more interested in hitting target than doing what was right and some of them are still out there even now.

Undoubtedly. Some of them are now dealing with complaints and upholding them because it is quicker than defending them.

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.

I agree although you only need a level 3 qualification for mortgage advice (I have a level 4 one) and none at all for general insurance, including PPI (I have a level 3 one for that).

overhang

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

At the end of the day I made a claim, and won, easily, and would advise others in a similar situation to forego the "advice" of the so called self proclaimed financial advisors on this forum and make a claim. They have nothing to lose except some time and a stamp.

magpiecottage

Interesting that you say you have an engineering degree. Coincidentally, I was just looking at an old case submitted by an ambulance chaser with an engineering degree telling me in great detail the manner in which a PPI policy that never existed had been missold.

You say your qualification is based on "real science and facts".

Science is not based on facts. It is based on hypothesis that is supported by evidence. Not the same thing as a fact. It is always at risk of the current hypothesis falling foul of the facts.

Science is also about making observations - that is how you get the evidence that supports or refutes the hypothesis.

Had you been observant, you would have realised that I am NOT a financial adviser.

You would also not have jumped to the conclusion that your policy would never have paid out. If you look here, you will see a case where an Ombudsman found against a complainant entitled to six months full sick pay and six months half sick pay - rather better than your six month/four month entitlement. The Ombudsman's view, in the end, was that she could not be certain there was no missale but the evidence

That is the main evidence on which my hypothesis is based.

Why was your complaint upheld. There are a several possibilities.

Sheer weight of numbers is one.

And it IS a fact that, win or lose, a firm must pay FOS a fee of £850 - as well as paying for somebody to argue the toss. So they may have decided settling was cheaper than fighting.

Then of course, you may not have had your case investigated by somebody who weighs up the evidence and applies Occam's razor and makes a decision as to what is most likely, assuming, if the assertion (of a missale) is not more likely than not - and not merely equally likely, it is not proven.

But that is the approach of a real scientist and it is why, although I believe your case is not proven, I only present some hypotheses as to why, despite the fact that your complaint, as presented here, seems defensible, has been upheld.

There is, though, a fourth reason. You, or the firm, have some evidence that we are not aware of. Like I say, a hypothisis is always at risk of new evidence to challenge it.

overhang

Looked it up on the source of all knowledge Wikipedia?

All I know is that there are 3 posters who constantly play down the chances of MPPI complaint success, who all pose as being linked to the financial industry in some way, and when faced with a success story react aggressively. The way you react would make one think you have some sort of hidden interest in this PPI saga, I wonder what it could be?

dunstonh

All I know is that there are 3 posters who constantly play down the chances of MPPI complaint success, who all pose as being linked to the financial industry in some way, and when faced with a success story react aggressively.

All I know is that you got lucky with a complaint outcome that didnt fit your reasons given for complaint. When presented with reasons for this, you became aggressive towards those that have provided information as to why that may have happened.

The way you react would make one think you have some sort of hidden interest in this PPI saga, I wonder what it could be?

We don't act with any bias. Where there is fault, we point it out. Where there are weaknesses we point it out.

(Text removed by MSE Forum Team)

saver861

But if it were that simple, any bank could hide their rules and regs in obscure small print. The whole reasoning for FOS is to ensure selling is fair and appropriate. Usually the seller is the expert and the customer has layman's knowledge - hence the need for protection.

I would like to think I know more about my profession than most of the general public outside that profession. In all other aspects I have but layman's knowledge.

As I said before, I agree with the gist of the op's assertion. I'm sure there are facts and figures that can give credence to the types of successes of MPPI claims. While fully agreeing the merits of MPPI, equally a mis-sale is a mis-sale.

My understanding is that the FOS uphold around 60% of all PPI complaints. I don't know what percentage of these are MPPI's. Regardless, that 60% in itself demonstrates that the banks etc are not acting appropriately and are attempting to avoid responsibility. Put another way, if the banks etc were acting completely transparent on each complaint and upholding those that should be upheld, then the FOS percentage upheld would be zero.

magpiecottage

saver861 wrote: »

But if it were that simple, any bank could hide their rules and regs in obscure small print. The whole reasoning for FOS is to ensure selling is fair and appropriate. Usually the seller is the expert and the customer has layman's knowledge - hence the need for protection.

I agree but by 2000 most literature for mortgage PPI was clear, fair and not misleading, particularly in relation to Mortgage PPI because of the influence of the Personal Investment Authority and the Mortgage Code Compliance Board on advisers.

That did not apply to PPI for other products because they were not sold by advisers regulated by either.

As I said before, I agree with the gist of the op's assertion. I'm sure there are facts and figures that can give credence to the types of successes of MPPI claims. While fully agreeing the merits of MPPI, equally a mis-sale is a mis-sale.

My understanding is that the FOS uphold around 60% of all PPI complaints. I don't know what percentage of these are MPPI's. Regardless, that 60% in itself demonstrates that the banks etc are not acting appropriately and are attempting to avoid responsibility.

The figures are not divided out by FOS. However, if you look at, for example, Sesame, a network of small independent advisers that sell mortgages and investments but not unsecured loans, the uphold rate is just 7 per cent.

In the first half of this year there were 53 cases referred to FOS. If the same uphold rate is repeated with them then about 47 advisers will be found to have done nothing wrong (though each will be forced to pay £850 for the privelege).

Put another way, if the banks etc were acting completely transparent on each complaint and upholding those that should be upheld, then the FOS percentage upheld would be zero.

In theory.

However, as addedvaluebob observed, FOS does not attract quality people and you need no qualifications to be an adjudicator or an ombudsman.

We will also never know for certain what view FOS would have taken in this case as it never got that far.

The evidence we have been presented with (i.e. the not impartial testimony of the OP) and the experience of other cases suggests FOS would have rejected it.

As I say, though, at £850 a time, they may have simply decided that, with the time cost for their own staff as well, it was simply not worth fighting.

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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.

Ranstad supply the PPI contractors on daily rate of £200. Hardly a poor day rate.

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.

PPI is a general insurance, it doesnt need a financial adviser to review a PPI complaint as its not a sophisticated financial product. A level 4 qualification is to sell investment products, pensions etc. I would agree that it should involve folk with some sort of experience or qualification.

addedvaluebob

£200 a day. Good quality and well qualified contractors wouldn't touch it unless they were desperate or the work is on their doorstep.

In reviewing any complaint they should be able to take into account a customers personal and financial circumstances, understand what employment benefits they may or not have and compare these with the situation when and if the policy may be needed to assess suitability. You would also possibly need to understand the benefits from their pension scheme in the event of permanent disability.

They shouldn't have sold anything if they didn't understand it properly and that's why so much of it was mis-sold