scottish amicable

roonaldo

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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

The OP said essentially said they couldn't claim the unemployment benefit on this life insurance policy as they were on their holiday so must be mis-sold. No other conclusion can be drawn other than they are talking utter ****.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

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

Given that the OP is telling us the policy was from Scottish Amicable which was never authorised to provide general insurance, I think it is reasonable to conclude that she is barking up the wrong tree.

If she thinks there is a valid complaint about the PPI she first needs to establish who provided it.

Then she needs to establish who was responsible for the sale of it (which will not be Scottish Amicable because it did not sell such policies).

Then she needs to establish if they still exist.

Then she needs to see if they will entertain a complaint.

If not she needs to establish if FOS has jurisdiction over them. If they were a member of a relevant predecessor Ombudsman scheme at the time then they will do.

In this respect, Scottish Amicable was covered by the PIA Ombudsman Bureau which only had jurisdiction over personal investments so it is not a relevant predecessor for the purposes of non-investment insurance such as PPI.

If the person responsible was subject to the Mortgage Code, its arbitration scheme could have considered a complaint about PPI. This permits FOS to consider some complaints under the transitional rules relating to when mortgages became regulated by the FSA. However, that applied only if the seller was subject to the Mortgage Code at the time of the sale AND went on to be directly regulated by the FSA.

If the seller was a Scottish Amicable Appointed Representative they tended to sell general insurance independently. If in 2004 Prudential extended their AR status to cover mortgages FOS would not have jurisdiction under the transitional rules.

If they seller was an IFA who was directly regulated by the PIA at the time AND went on to be regulated by the FSA then FOS might have jurisdiction - if they still exist. However, if they were simply an Appointed Representative of somebody else they would not (with the exception of a network called DBS some of whose members relied on its Mortgage Code subscription - such complaints would need to go to Sesame who would probably seek to time bar if at all possible).

Then you face the question of suitability. Clearly the borrower was made redundant, so superficially there was a need.

The policy did not pay out but that seems to be a contractual issue between the insurer and the insured person. I suppose you could argue that the seller should have said that if you decide to go off round the world instead of looking for a job it won't pay out but FOS can look at what is fair and reasonable, not just the letter of the law. So the seller could ask if it is fair and reasonable to expect them to spell out something that any reasonable person would think was obvious.

Then we get back to the timebar. The policy was clearly sold more than six years ago. We do not know when the claim was declined but that would set the three year clock running. The policyholder has then gone round the world, split up with his wife, divorced or been widowed. found the OP married her. Unless that has all happened within three years, then the seller can ask for a timebar.

addedvaluebob

Perhaps it would be best for the OP to find out what the policy actually was before citing all the possible obstructions to making a successful complaint.

OP, what is the policy actually called on the Scot Am paperwork that you still have?

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Perhaps it would be best for the OP to find out what the policy actually was before citing all the possible obstructions to making a successful complaint.

Possibly but from what we have been told, the odds are very much stacked against her.

dunstonh

Perhaps it would be best for the OP to find out what the policy actually was before citing all the possible obstructions to making a successful complaint.

Perhaps it is best for the OP to know the potential issues or areas of concern to allow them to look into those more.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

Perhaps it is best for the OP to know the potential issues or areas of concern to allow them to look into those more.

That would not be the position of somebody looking for the OP to not be treated fairly.

They would prefer that the one chance was blown on spurious complaint points in preference to the correct respondent being forced to address the real complaint.

addedvaluebob

How can there be spurious complaint points when they don't even know what the policy is, who sold it etc etc etc. First they need the information then perhaps they might get some real advice based on some semblance of fact

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

How can there be spurious complaint points when they don't even know what the policy is, who sold it etc etc etc. First they need the information then perhaps they might get some real advice based on some semblance of fact

How can they know they are NOT spurious if they don't even know what the policy is, who sold it etc etc etc.

If you go in with all guns blazing, are shown to be spouting utter nonsense and the case is closed down with the six month time limit then at the end of the time - or when FOS turn it down instead - that is the end of the matter. If you then find out something that IS true, it is too late. You have had your one shot and missed.