PPI claim without ANY documents. Can it be done?

addedvaluebob

If the OP switched mortgage with Abbey in 2003 on a 5 year deal that ended in 2008 it is very likely the original documents will have been scanned and still held on the Santander system. They don't clean the database once the statutory requirements for DPA are met

Insider101

gktechnology wrote: »

Because Martin said so and because I distinctly remember the feeling of being pressured/scared into taking the mortgage protection.

Leaving aside the issue of documents, I think your biggest problem is that this is not grounds for complaint in the slightest. Advisers are perfectly entitled to make you consider the potential consequences of not having insurance (losing your home etc...). Indeed, it's a part of doing the job properly. If they didn't then they'd have a host of people complaining that they were never advised to take out insurance and lost their homes as a result.

Unless you have actually been provided with information that is materially incorrect and made a material difference to your decision to purchase the product then they have done nothing wrong here.

McKneff

and presumably if you have no documents, you have nothing in writing to back up your complaint either.

gktechnology

Looks like I didn't fully grasp the mis-selling concept. I understand now that if a PPI product was offered and I chose to take it then no mis-selling occurred whereas if I wanted a product but was told I couldn't purchase without taking PPI then I would have grounds for a claim. Would that be an accurate summary?

dunstonh

Your right it was Mortgage Protection which I assumed was the same as PPI.

Mortgage protection is a generic term to cover insurances that can be used in connection with a mortgage. Some life assurance plans call themselves mortgage protection. So, was this MPPI or some other insurance?

I understand now that if a PPI product was offered and I chose to take it then no mis-selling occurred whereas if I wanted a product but was told I couldn't purchase without taking PPI then I would have grounds for a claim. Would that be an accurate summary?

Broadly speaking, yes. Although in the 90s and earlier, the banks did often insisnt on insurances. If a condition of borrowing insists on insurance then that is allowed. Although by the 90s, you tended to see conditions of lending to be linked to packaged deals. e.g. get a fixed rate lower than the normal rate if you also buy an insurance product. That model is allowed. Although the insurance still needs to be suitable.

Loan and credit card PPI is fairly easy to complain about and has a high success rate. MPPI has a much lower success rate. Today, MPPI is one of only two types of PPI still retailed. It is considered more important cover to have given the consequences of not paying your mortgage. The Ombudsman decisions show they only uphold 1 in 10 of MPPI complaints referred to them. So, yes it can be mis-sold, as can any genuine product, but it was not as widespread as loan and credit card PPI.

Nearlyold

gktechnology wrote: »

Looks like I didn't fully grasp the mis-selling concept. I understand now that if a PPI product was offered and I chose to take it then no mis-selling occurred whereas if I wanted a product but was told I couldn't purchase without taking PPI then I would have grounds for a claim. Would that be an accurate summary?

Partially accurate to an extent, however you would have to have some evidence that you were told it was compulsory when it wasn't. Neither the company you complain to or FOS will just take your word for it.

Insider101

gktechnology wrote: »

Looks like I didn't fully grasp the mis-selling concept. I understand now that if a PPI product was offered and I chose to take it then no mis-selling occurred whereas if I wanted a product but was told I couldn't purchase without taking PPI then I would have grounds for a claim. Would that be an accurate summary?

If you were given correct, complete and accurate information and chose to purchase the product of your own free will then this is not misselling. If you were advised to purchase a product which was completely unsuitable, or given misleading information which resulted in your purchasing one that you wouldn't have done otherwise then this is misselling. That includes being told the product was a requirement to get the loan IF this was not actually the case. However it can also include just about any other type of misleading information.

However, as I explained earlier, being unsettled by the adviser bringing up the possible consequences of not having it is not misselling in itself.

dunstonh

However, as I explained earlier, being unsettled by the adviser bringing up the possible consequences of not having it is not misselling in itself.

indeed, that is what advisers are required to do. Make you are aware of shortfalls and consequences. You would be complaining that the adviser did their job correctly.

addedvaluebob

Insider101 wrote: »

Leaving aside the issue of documents, I think your biggest problem is that this is not grounds for complaint in the slightest. Advisers are perfectly entitled to make you consider the potential consequences of not having insurance (losing your home etc...). Indeed, it's a part of doing the job properly. If they didn't then they'd have a host of people complaining that they were never advised to take out insurance and lost their homes as a result.

Unless you have actually been provided with information that is materially incorrect and made a material difference to your decision to purchase the product then they have done nothing wrong here.

can we assume that insider 101 has a vested interest in dissuading the public from pursuing complaints. It is apparently perfectly acceptable for the OP to feel 'pressured/scared' its part of 'doing their job properly'.

Nobody on this forum, including me actually knows what the policy is/was and yet apparently this may have been acceptable practice because the company may have insisted that protection was compulsory, the ombudsman only upholds one in ten cases, although we have no idea what the policy was.

Nobody needs evidence of what they were 'told' during an interview it is the customers word against the companies records. Despite having records the companies lose 70% of all PPI complaints

dunstonh

It is apparently perfectly acceptable for the OP to feel 'pressured/scared' its part of 'doing their job properly'.

Yes it is. And you know it is. So, not sure why you are saying otherwise.

Nobody needs evidence of what they were 'told' during an interview it is the customers word against the companies records.

Verbal allegations are the weakest form of complaint.

Despite having records the companies lose 70% of all PPI complaints

That is not correct for MPPI. The product that is being talked about on this thread.