Mortgage Protection Insurance - Scottish Provident

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Not if they had an existing policy elsewhere that could/should have been taken into account before selling a new policy

I wonder what are the odds are of somebody just happening to have an existing life policy which exactly matches the amount he is about to borrow, will continue to run over exactly the outstanding term the mortgage and will decrease in line with the repayment of that mortgage - and is not being used for any other purpose.

I am about to go off and meet a bright young mathematics undergraduate and I suppose I could ask him. But he would probably tell me the answer is more than zero but it is so little more that there is no coin of the real small enough to match it.

But we don't know the exact policy details and the benefits. Did every policy pay out in addition? There are far too many providers, policies and individual terms to consider that changed during the life of any particular plan being marketed to say with certainty without seeing the original documentation

No - but we do know the OP is seeking to rely on an assertion that he was told he must have it, which cannot be proven.

addedvaluebob

It doesn't have to exactly match the dates etc it is the overall protection that they hold in relation to the amount of borrowing as you well understand. Look up the FOS rulings for people who were sold mortgage protection when they already had sufficient life cover.

The OP still doesn't know all the policy details and if he wants to make a complaint based on what he remembers as part of the overall complaint that is his prerogative in exactly the same way that the banks etc often rely on 'this was our sales practice at the time' from the T & C scheme when they have no idea if it was followed by all advisers

dunstonh

It doesn't have to exactly match the dates etc it is the overall protection that they hold in relation to the amount of borrowing as you well understand. Look up the FOS rulings for people who were sold mortgage protection when they already had sufficient life cover.

Life assurance complaints are low and the uphold rate is low. One recent trend is that the FOS has started rejecting complaints where the person was single with no dependants. A few years back, that would be an upheld complaint. These things can change over time.

The vast majority of the population has insufficient life assurance. In over 20 years, I have never found anyone with sufficient cover.

The OP still doesn't know all the policy details and if he wants to make a complaint based on what he remembers as part of the overall complaint that is his prerogative in exactly the same way that the banks etc often rely on 'this was our sales practice at the time' from the T & C scheme when they have no idea if it was followed by all advisers

As you well know, a complaint making an unprovable allegation is unlikely to succeed on that point. So, it will then fall back to whether the policy was suitable etc. However, a pre-regulation case on a broker that no longer exists is not going to get far unless it is a network adviser.

Is it possible this complaint could succeed? yes. Anything is possible. However, you wouldnt put any money on it for so many different reasons.

addedvaluebob

So everyone should just let the OP get his information and make the complaint if he wants to without judging the case with no real information we don't even know who sold the policy at this time.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

The OP still doesn't know all the policy details and if he wants to make a complaint based on what he remembers as part of the overall complaint that is his prerogative in exactly the same way that the banks etc often rely on 'this was our sales practice at the time' from the T & C scheme when they have no idea if it was followed by all advisers

Except that the OP has made an assertion and the evidence must show that it is more likely than not, and not merely equally likley to be true because there s no evidence.

By contrast if the only evidence is that sales manual then that one piece of evidence makes it more likely than not to be true. Yes it is possible, even probable, that there would have been individual advisers who did not follow those procedures on that particular occasion but the evidence needs to show that to result in an uphold.

Anyway, the OP asked if anybody had any experience of claims(isc). My experience of complaints (which is what they actually mean) is that I have successfully used that defence.

addedvaluebob

magpiecottage wrote: »

Except that the OP has made an assertion and the evidence must show that it is more likely than not, and not merely equally likley to be true because there s no evidence.

By contrast if the only evidence is that sales manual then that one piece of evidence makes it more likely than not to be true. Yes it is possible, even probable, that there would have been individual advisers who did not follow those procedures on that particular occasion but the evidence needs to show that to result in an uphold..

But this completely ignores the thousands of upheld complaints. If the sales manual's had been followed then PPI would not have been mis-sold to the retired, unemployed, self employed who could not claim etc etc

Was it 'possible, even probable'. The weight of evidence and percentages of uphold cases suggest that the sales manual was routinely ignored in favour of making a sale and hitting targets and this was systemic in the financial institutions responsible for creating this whole mess in the first place.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

But this completely ignores the thousands of upheld complaints. If the sales manual's had been followed then PPI would not have been mis-sold to the retired, unemployed, self employed who could not claim etc etc.

But this completely ignores

magpiecottage wrote: »

My experience of complaints (which is what they actually mean) is that I have successfully used that defence.

I am aware that in some financial services circles there was a "throw everything at it and see what sticks" approach to selling products. But it was wrong to take that approach with selling and it is wrong to take it with complaints about misselling.

dunstonh

But this completely ignores the thousands of upheld complaints. If the sales manual's had been followed then PPI would not have been mis-sold to the retired, unemployed, self employed who could not claim etc etc

But you are ignoring the far greater number of rejections. This is also not PPI.

Was it 'possible, even probable'. The weight of evidence and percentages of uphold cases suggest that the sales manual was routinely ignored in favour of making a sale and hitting targets and this was systemic in the financial institutions responsible for creating this whole mess in the first place.

Incorrect. The number of life assurance complaints vs the volume sold is tiny. The uphold rate is low as well.

magpiecottage

I have managed an old reference to this product in Money Marketing.

This tells us it was a term assurance policy with a critical illness and unemployment option and was launched in 2000.

But it is still essentially a life policy. The amount paid out in the event of death would, as the OP says, fall over time - but that is because the amount needed to repay the loan would fall.

Generally, FOS has found in favour of firms selling this type of policy from that time because it is clear that a customer knows what they are buying and, in the case of a mortgage, there is a defined need which it addresses.

In addition, FOS is quite experienced with assertions that are unprovable. I have lost count of the number I have seen where somebody at FOS has said they "have found/seen no evidence" that it is true.

We also still do not know whether the seller would fall un