Nationwide ppi rejection - any advice welcome

Rocket1971

I received a rejection from Nationwide re a PPI claim, the letter is dated 04.08.14 and states this is there final response.

As I understand it I can now refer this to the ombudsman. Is there a form I need to complete to do this or is it simply a case of writing a letter to them enclosing copies of the relevant documents?

I know this will need to be done before 04.02.15 which is when the 6 month time limit expires.

If there is anyone who has had a similar experience with Nationwide please would you kindly let me know the outcome or point to the right thread on this forum

Thanks in advance

Rocket 1971

Nasqueron

Rocket1971 wrote: »

I received a rejection from Nationwide re a PPI claim, the letter is dated 04.08.14 and states this is there final response.

As I understand it I can now refer this to the ombudsman. Is there a form I need to complete to do this or is it simply a case of writing a letter to them enclosing copies of the relevant documents?

I know this will need to be done before 04.02.15 which is when the 6 month time limit expires.

If there is anyone who has had a similar experience with Nationwide please would you kindly let me know the outcome or point to the right thread on this forum

Thanks in advance

Rocket 1971

There is nothing difficult to worry about, just contact the FOS (details on their website) and refer your complaint.

Other people's experiences are largely moot as each case is individual and previous cases may not reflect your case or how it will work out.

You would be better on this forum detailing your complaint - what you said and what they said in response to see if anyone can advise

dunstonh

If there is anyone who has had a similar experience with Nationwide please would you kindly let me know the outcome or point to the right thread on this forum

You dont say what type of PPI you have. What distribution channel (Nationwide is made up of many ex building societies), when it was and how it was sold to you. So, its difficult to know what other peoples experience you would be looking for which would be similar to yours.

What was your complaint reason and why do you disagree with it? What type of PPI is it?

Rocket1971

Thank you both for the response.
The policy was MPPI sold to my Father in a Nationwide (NW) Building Society Branch. The insurance documents I have state the insurer was GRE (UK) Ltd through Nationwide Life.

I completed the NW PPI form stating that at the time my Fathers company would have paid out for 18 months had he been ill as well as both him and my Mother having a substantial rainy day pot of savings, and that he was "guided" to take out the policy by the advisor at the time.

The letter I received back said that the cover initially provided £750.00 per month in additional cover, in the event that my Father was off work due to accident, sickness or unemployment for a max period of 24 mths.

When the policy commenced my Father was 47 and my Mother 57, he was in full time employment for approx 8 yrs 6 mths and my Mother a housewife. No illnesses were reported.

They stated that savings could not be relied upon.

The firstr 12 mths of was free and then after that they were charged. It covered the full mortgage plus a additional 750.00 cover.

In 1997 the additional cover was decreased to 450.00 I have no paperwork to show why this happended.

Not sure if this helps, I will try and dig out more paperwork.
Thanks again

dunstonh

The policy was MPPI sold to my Father in a Nationwide (NW) Building Society Branch.

This is important. Most MPPI complaints are rejected. This includes by the FOS.

I completed the NW PPI form stating that at the time my Fathers company would have paid out for 18 months had he been ill as well as both him and my Mother having a substantial rainy day pot of savings, and that he was "guided" to take out the policy by the advisor at the time.

FOS tends to disregard employer benefits with MPPI (its a good reason with credit card and loan PPI but not MPPI). This is because a mortgage is an important debt with lifestyle changing consequences if it goes unpaid. Employer benefits are typically not full salary Often starting at 100% but dropping to 50% after a period. The maximum timescale is normally 12 months (you say 18 months but that is extremely rare - evidence may be asked to prove it)

When the policy commenced my Father was 47 and my Mother 57, he was in full time employment for approx 8 yrs 6 mths and my Mother a housewife. No illnesses were reported.

None of that helps your complaint. Indeed, it helps Nationwide support the sale as it verifies no pre-existing conditions and that he was employed.

The firstr 12 mths of was free and then after that they were charged. It covered the full mortgage plus a additional 750.00 cover.

This also hinders the complaint as Nationwide would have written to him just before the 12 months were up to say what the cover would cost if they chose to continue it and that he had the chance to cancel it if he wanted to.

In 1997 the additional cover was decreased to 450.00 I have no paperwork to show why this happended.

Mortgage payments shot up in the mid 90s but began to fall back a couple of years later. So, the cover needed would not be as much.

Not sure if this helps, I will try and dig out more paperwork.

It helps understand the complaint more but I dont think it helps your chances of success.

Savings can have an impact on need but if it was a non-advised sale, then the seller doesnt have to consider that. Also, when you say substantial rainy day pot of savings, some context on that is important. if it was more than say 2 years income then it could be argued he didnt need it (although it would still have served its purpose). If it was less than 2 years income then its not that substantial and less than the policy payout period.

addedvaluebob

If you are unhappy with the NW response and still think you were mis-sold then file it with FOS. The form you would have filled out for NW should have had all the same questions so it should be a simple matter of transposing the information and signing the authority for FOS to contact NW on your behalf.

Given that the policy only paid out for 24 months and you had 18 months of employment benefits and savings means you were able to cover the mortgage without needing this policy. This was a not a long term MPPI where the cover could last for 25 years.

There is no guarantee that NW wrote and explained anything. They could have simply relied on your father not taking any action after the first 12 months and relying on his inaction or tacit agreement from the original sale.

If he was 'guided' to take out the policy then NW should have copies of the documentation from the time of the sale that they should have provided

Nasqueron

addedvaluebob wrote: »

If you are unhappy with the NW response and still think you were mis-sold then file it with FOS. The form you would have filled out for NW should have had all the same questions so it should be a simple matter of transposing the information and signing the authority for FOS to contact NW on your behalf.

Given that the policy only paid out for 24 months and you had 18 months of employment benefits and savings means you were able to cover the mortgage without needing this policy. This was a not a long term MPPI where the cover could last for 25 years.

There is no guarantee that NW wrote and explained anything. They could have simply relied on your father not taking any action after the first 12 months and relying on his inaction or tacit agreement from the original sale.

If he was 'guided' to take out the policy then NW should have copies of the documentation from the time of the sale that they should have provided

OP said the parents has "substantial rainy day pot of savings" - no figure was provided, certainly no mention of the equivalent of 18 months worth of pay.

Furthermore, OP has not started if the 18 months was full pay for the whole period, just that the policy was there.

Savings are there for emergencies sure but also for all sorts of things - imagine if they needed to replace a car or the boiler blew up - it's going to eat into the money very quickly if they're also living off it especially if the sick pay was not full pay.

Rocket, you need to clarify (and see what evidence you have) for 2 complaints to help a referral to the FOS:

1) How much was the sick pay full pay for and how much was reduced pay (and how much was it reduced by e.g. 6 months full, 12 months half)?
2) How much did they have in savings? I would hazard a guess they were in a very good job to get 18 months of sick pay - would the savings be 2x annual salary or a high 5 figure sum?

addedvaluebob

Rocket, you don't need to do anything on here to justify your case.

Without a complete set of details, and I do mean everything from initial correspondence through payslips, details of deposits at the time, contract of employment, amount of savings, monthly household expenditure etc etc etc no one can actually judge your case with any degree of certainty. All you will do is attract criticism.

Do what you think is right, not what anyone on this forum says, you obviously thought there was a case in the first place.

Has the response from Nationwide changed that opinion sufficiently to think it was not mis-sold or has revealed some information that you did not know when you made the complaint

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

If you are unhappy with the NW response and still think you were mis-sold then file it with FOS. The form you would have filled out for NW should have had all the same questions so it should be a simple matter of transposing the information and signing the authority for FOS to contact NW on your behalf.

You could probably just send a copy of the Nationwide form with the FOS general complaint form.

Given that the policy only paid out for 24 months and you had 18 months of employment benefits and savings means you were able to cover the mortgage without needing this policy.

Possibly but if such assertions are made then it is reasonable to expect the OP to prove they are more likely than not to be true.

This was a not a long term MPPI where the cover could last for 25 years.

Of course not. PPI is short term insurance with a periodic (usually annual) renewal.

There is no guarantee that NW wrote and explained anything.

There would not have been any requirement to do so in 1997 or before - and we know that the policy benefits fell then so it must have been taken out earlier.

They could have simply relied on your father not taking any action after the first 12 months and relying on his inaction or tacit agreement from the original sale.

Quite possibly but that would not have been contrary to the regulations as they were at the time.

If he was 'guided' to take out the policy then NW should have copies of the documentation from the time of the sale that they should have provided

Possibly. However, we only have the OP's word for it that it was. I presume the OP was not there - I never sat in on my parents interviews with mortgage lenders and I can't imagine that many people would.

So this does not seem very persuasive.

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

You could probably just send a copy of the Nationwide form with the FOS general complaint form.

Possibly but if such assertions are made then it is reasonable to expect the OP to prove they are more likely than not to be true.

Of course not. PPI is short term insurance with a periodic (usually annual) renewal.

There would not have been any requirement to do so in 1997 or before - and we know that the policy benefits fell then so it must have been taken out earlier.

Quite possibly but that would not have been contrary to the regulations as they were at the time.

Possibly. However, we only have the OP's word for it that it was. I presume the OP was not there - I never sat in on my parents interviews with mortgage lenders and I can't imagine that many people would.

So this does not seem very persuasive.

What is this, an exercise in stating the obvious and trying to dissuade the poster from putting the case with FOS.

'It is up to the OP to prove it was true'. I have assumed they were being honest when they posted on this forum.

safestored4

Come off it Bob. It doesn't matter what your assumptions are. In law he or she who asserts must prove this to be the case.