scottish amicable

SamRose

my husband had ppi in 1998 (we have the paperwork) but it is my understanding that they changed to prudential in 2003, how would he go about pursuing a claim?

Nasqueron

You would complain to Prudential as they own Scottish Amicable but might be a long complaint given the age of the sale - who sold it to you in 1998?

What are your complaint reasons why it was miss-sold?

SamRose

It was my husband and his first wife. they had it to cover unemployment. my husband was made redundant and decided to travel to NZ to see a friend, they refused to cover the mortgage payments because they said he was 'actively seeking work'. this was not explained to him when he took out the policy, therefore we assume it was missold

magpiecottage

Scottish Amicable was a life assurance company. It did not have a PPI product as it was not authorised to provide general insurance.

It is possible that whoever sold it to you also offered general insurance from other providers but your complaint would be against the person selling it.

Nearlyold

Think you'll find the claim was declined because he was NOT actively seeking work (i.e. he had gone on holiday to NZ).

dunstonh

Most Scot Am policies were sold via IFAs and intermediaries. In those cases, it would be the adviser that you complain to.

However, your reason for complaint is flawed. If you have not signed on and are not seeking work then you are not unemployed. so, the policy will obviously not pay out. Making a complaint on the basis of not being told that in 1998 wouldnt succeed because a) its an unprovable allegation, b) you dont need to be told that c) it is not an onerous condition but normal expectation.

magpiecottage

FOS would almost certainly not have jurisdiction either. Unless the intermediary subscribed to the Mortgage Code at the time AND later became directly authorised by the FSA in respect of general insurance AND still exists it cannot.

Even then, the policy would seem to be suitable and the adviser could not have been expected to foresee that if the borrower became unemployed he would decide to go on a jolly rather than looking for alternative employment.

addedvaluebob

Amazing.

We have a Scot Am PPI policy that didn't exist because Scot Am did not sell general insurance.

We don't know with any certainty the status of the adviser at the time or the personal and financial circumstances of the OP's husband at the time.

Based on two lines of information it is:

The policy would seem to be suitable
FOS has no jurisdiction, unless , and and etc
The complaint is flawed, but we don't know anything other than he went on holiday but this could have been in the period before payout kicked in such as 14/30 days.

Can I suggest that before giving up based on this thread they should fully research the policy T & C's to see exactly what it was, the advising company responsible and current status and then reconsider or re-post with more information

Nasqueron

If the policy stated that they would cover payments while you were actively seeking work after being made unemployed and you decided to go travelling instead (thus would be unable to sign on either) you were obviously not seeking work then of course the claim would be rejected

addedvaluebob

I think there needs to be lot more thinking and clarification before any conclusion can be drawn

antrobus

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I think there needs to be lot more thinking and clarification before any conclusion can be drawn

What thinking and clarification do you need? Seems pretty plain to me.

SamRose wrote: »

It was my husband and his first wife. they had it to cover unemployment. my husband was made redundant and decided to travel to NZ to see a friend, they refused to cover the mortgage payments because they said he was (not) 'actively seeking work'. this was not explained to him when he took out the policy, therefore we assume it was missold

That's a bit like taking out buildings insurance, then deliberately setting fire to your house because you were a bit bored one day, and then claiming that you were mis-sold the buildings insurance because the insurers didn't tell you that they wouldn't pay out in such circumstances.

I suppose you could put a complaint into the FOS and see what happens. It doesn't cost anything after all, now does it?