Legal & general mppi

addedvaluebob

roonaldo wrote: »

I concur, this is a mortgage, your home and your life! not a rubbish £500 store card PPI. There will be posts on here in the foreseeable future entitled "I cancelled my PPI and now I cant pay mortgage" and of course it will be the banks fault.

And why? because they took advantage and put this all on the line for a quick £1500 payout which they probably spent in 5 minutes.

Surely it will be this forum's fault for encouraging and empowering these people by supplying template letters and postings listing the millions of cases that have been instigated by this site

[Deleted User]

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Surely it will be this forum's fault for encouraging and empowering these people by supplying template letters and postings listing the millions of cases that have been instigated by this site

Actually this forum is not very encouraging to any mortgage PPI complaint. However, I fully expect you to continue addressing that disparity!:)

saver861

Brokerwise wrote: »

Before the ombudsman upped the quota for claims before a charge could be made a number of people lost there businesses and livelihood over such spurious without merit MPPI claims.

But is that not a failure of the 'system'? I would agree there should be some merits to a complaint and at the moment the 'system' allows the consumer to make complaint unrestricted. In effect, its the system that's encouraging spurious complaints.

That said, from reading some posts on these forums, I'm amazed at the apparent naiviety and obliviousness of people in reference to their financial matters! It demonstrates there are many people out there needing solid, fair and reasonable advice which brokers etc have an obligation. There is no doubt, some will have failed in that obligation so not 'all' of the people and businesses you refer to are necessarily victims of spurious claims.

Brokerwise wrote: »

I would love it if some of these people who falsely tried their luck lost their jobs and subsequently there homes after cancelling the policy they did not need due to "parents would have bailed them out", "savings to cover", "sick pay" blah blah blah. You reap what you sow.

See now, that approach does not help matters at all imho. Such an opinion from a professional financial expert would not inspire me with confidence to entrust them with my custom and financial matters. If there is a need then the complaint will not be upheld so they keep it or cancel it. Insurance is all about risk, but the promotion of insurance is often based on connecting to people's fears. Quite simply, that has to be done fair and reasonably by anyone selling insurance, often it is not the case.

As for the spurious claims, I mentioned in another post, I don't see why the FOS cannot screen some of the most obvious try-it-on complaints and either try to disuade the complainant or, if they still choose to pursue it, impose a charge in the event of a failed complaint.

addedvaluebob

Is there any evidence that people have lost their business and livelihood over these spurious claims

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Is there any evidence that people have lost their business and livelihood over these spurious claims

Yes, it may not be evident on here (yet) but through the work I have done. On occasions I have see people cancel insurance, lose job and get house respossesed. I have also seen the opposite, one couple claimed £45k on a joint PPI policy, then alleged it was mis-sold. They'd be sleeping at Kings Cross station if it were not from taking PPI!

On a couple of occasions I have seen cancelled life insurance, then they die and then the partner wants to claim but unfortunetely cannot, very sad indeed.

The bad coverage PPI has had has led some people to believe 'Insurance must be bad'.

addedvaluebob

The quote from brokerwise (who I assume works in the FS business) intimated that some brokers had gone under because of the effect of spurious claims. It then goes to to wish that some of the false claim posters suffer by making these spurious claims.

I have seen the same type of cases as you have from the point of view of the general public but not really seen any business or broker go under because of the weight of PPI claims

[Deleted User]

saver861 wrote: »

I don't see why the FOS cannot screen some of the most obvious try-it-on complaints and either try to disuade the complainant or, if they still choose to pursue it, impose a charge in the event of a failed complaint.

FOS are swamped as it is, what you are suggesting is another level of adjudication BEFORE the actual decision. This would require even more qualified staff and mean complaints taking even longer than they do already.

I don't think there is anything that can be done to deter (some) spurious claims being referred to a free-to-use service.

dunstonh

The quote from brokerwise (who I assume works in the FS business) intimated that some brokers had gone under because of the effect of spurious claims. It then goes to to wish that some of the false claim posters suffer by making these spurious claims.

I have not seen anyone lose their business but I do know of one mortgage adviser that got a fraudulent complaint and the claims company took it to the FOS and he suffered a FOS fee (network member). He is young adviser in his 20s who had only been going a few years and being mortgage and insurance only in a low property value area, his income was low. About £1500pm.

He got a fraudulent complaint making all sorts of allegations about what he had or had not said when selling them MPPI. However, he never sold them MPPI. The letter was typical claims company template and was completely made up. It was rejected as never taken out. However, the claims company did their auto referral to the FOS. The FOS rejected it but did not class it as frivolous and as a network member he didnt get any free cases. So, he suffered the FOS fee.

When he told me about it, he was anxious and you could see the stress and he was almost in tears. He also lost a third of his income that month because of a fraudulent complaint. i spoke to him recently and he said he now fears the postman turning up and seeing a letter of complaint arrive and even every notification of an email arriving in case it is his network telling him about a complaint. It has had a very negative outcome on him. I do admit that his case has influenced me when it comes to making complaints about brokers. Where there is a genuine complaint then it should be made. However, unlike the banks where there are no consequences, when complaining against adviser/brokers, there is. So, try-it-on and fraudulent complaints should not be encouraged as nothing to lose.

addedvaluebob

Surely he should ask for the fee to be refunded from the network. He is paying a slice/fee of his earnings for the support and ancillary services they provide. If there was no product sold then the complainant had no grounds for a claim and it should have been rejected and no fee charged. Again this highlights the inadequacy of some FOS adjudicators, but I guess it is easier for the network to just pass the fee on than argue the point fully and is something people need to be aware of before joining a network as he could of had this as part of the 25 free cases

dunstonh

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Surely he should ask for the fee to be refunded from the network. He is paying a slice/fee of his earnings for the support and ancillary services they provide. If there was no product sold then the complainant had no grounds for a claim and it should have been rejected and no fee charged. Again this highlights the inadequacy of some FOS adjudicators, but I guess it is easier for the network to just pass the fee on than argue the point fully and is something people need to be aware of before joining a network as he could of had this as part of the 25 free cases

The quirks of how the FOS treats networks and subsidiary firms is for another thread. Networks have pros and cons and that is certainly a negative. However, the root cause of his problem was someone sending in a fraudulent complaint. That has nothing to do with his status.