PPI reclaim from mortgage in 1997??

antrobus

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Utter nonsense. Most (all) tied agents from 1997 would have been tied to the same company for simplicity and the added bonus of getting a volume over-ride....

Err, isn't that exactly what magpiecottage said?

addedvaluebob wrote: »

..OP ignore this rubbish and try and find who sold the original policy, may take a bit of time but worth it in the end to pursue your complaint. Don't be persuaded to give up

Again, I'd like to point out that the OP has yet to establish that there was a policy in the first place.:)

roonaldo

Bob often jumps on the end of posts purposely objecting to what other people have said.

addedvaluebob

antrobus wrote: »

Err, isn't that exactly what magpiecottage said?

Again, I'd like to point out that the OP has yet to establish that there was a policy in the first place.:)

No. Magpiecottage suggested that 'some' brokers were tied for life and pension products. In reality at the time the tied agent market was more than 90% of the brokers out there.

The suggestion was that the broker was fully independent for the sale of general insurance and therefore there would be no-one to pursue.

The reality is that most mortgage brokers at the time were tied to one company for the whole package of life and general products. So whilst the OP has said 'they think' they should at least look into it further.

I only 'purposely object' when people are posting misinformation

dunstonh

Utter nonsense. Most (all) tied agents from 1997 would have been tied to the same company for simplicity and the added bonus of getting a volume over-ride.

No they were not. For example, a lot of estate agents were tied to L&G but only for life assurance product classification (life, CI and PHI). The home insurance, being general insurance, was not under the L&G agency until in the mid 2000s.

No. Magpiecottage suggested that 'some' brokers were tied for life and pension products. In reality at the time the tied agent market was more than 90% of the brokers out there.

tied for life assurance company classification but the principle did not cover general insurance classification until many years after this sale unless it was their own product.

The reality is that most mortgage brokers at the time were tied to one company for the whole package of life and general products.

That is not the reality in 1997. It became reality some years later.

antrobus

addedvaluebob wrote: »

No. Magpiecottage suggested that 'some' brokers were tied for life and pension products. In reality at the time the tied agent market was more than 90% of the brokers out there......

What they actually said was "some mortgage brokers were "tied" to particular life assurance companies". That's like saying that 'some football players are contracted to play for particular football clubs'; the reference to clubs in the plural simply means that there is more than one club in existence that they could contract with.

It's pretty clear your're just looking for petty little point scoring ooportunities.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

...I only 'purposely object' when people are posting misinformation

And yet it appears you were wrong. Again.:)

addedvaluebob

Clearly you have little or no knowledge of the financial services marketplace from the period and I can't be bothered to explain it to you.

and as for this piece

No they were not. For example, a lot of estate agents were tied to L&G but only for life assurance product classification (life, CI and PHI). The home insurance, being general insurance, was not under the L&G agency until in the mid 2000s.

I was a tied agent for L & G prior to 1997, and we sold the whole brand, including their own branded mortgages and general insurance. This was true of most of the brokers in the region

For the OP, continue to research the background to your complain and don't be put off by all the negatives that say there is no-one to claim against. Get the facts yourself

dunstonh

I was a tied agent for L & G prior to 1997, and we sold the whole brand, including their own branded mortgages and general insurance. This was true of most of the brokers in the region

Yet plenty of L&G tied providers sold paymentshield etc. You shouldnt mistake your own experience to be the same as others.

addedvaluebob

and the guy down the road selling Royal and Sun alliance life and general policies, the Commercial Union agency two streets away,General Accident, the Prudential estate agents purchased in the boom, GRE in the estate agents, Eagle Star. Norwich Union

All the composites offered the same model to their tied agents and in the nineties these made up the bulk of the adviser community

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

No. Magpiecottage suggested that 'some' brokers were tied for life and pension products. In reality at the time the tied agent market was more than 90% of the brokers out there.

Where is your evidence to support this?

The suggestion was that the broker was fully independent for the sale of general insurance and therefore there would be no-one to pursue.

This was not a suggestion but an assertion.



Following the principle that "he who asserts must prove", I explain that in 1997, when the OP took out his mortgage, financial services were regulated by the now repealed Financial Services Act 1986. That Act covered investment products, including endowments and personal pensions but, crucially, no product that did not have an investment element.

To sell such products, a firm had to be authorised to do so or, alternatively, be an "Appointed Representative" of a firm that was authorised. There was no requirement to be authorised to sell any product without an investment element, be that mortgages, general insurance or currant buns.

PPI is a general insurance with no investment element.

In addition, a general insurance company was always a different legal entity to a life assurance company - even if they bore the same name.

So you might have purchased an endowment policy from Legal & General Assurance Society Limited from one of its tied agents. If so, Legal & General Assurance Society was responsible for that sale.

However, if you purchased PPI Legal & General Assurance Society was not responsible because it was not a product that its authorisation covered.

The product might (or might not) have been a Legal & General one but it would have been provided by Legal & General Insurance Limited, a different company to whom the adviser could not, at that time have been tied because the concept did not exist for general insurance at that time.

The reality is that most mortgage brokers at the time were tied to one company for the whole package of life and general products.

This is an assertion which contradicts mine.

So where is your proof?

I only 'purposely object' when people are posting misinformation

But you seem to be posting misinformation.