Joint Claim - without my permission

Insider101

Yorkie100 wrote: »

I do not know the company name yet.
My ex put in a claim and because the mortgage was in both names the company claimed for both of us, without my knowledge and paid him the full amount less their fee's, to be split with me. The amount paid by the bank was £2,600, the company took £1,400 in fees.

Hence why people should not used CMCs! Over 50% in total which is ridiculous!

I think you are getting somewhat mixed up with the terminology here. What the company did was not "claim" for anyone, they submitted a complaint on behalf of your husband alleging missale of the policy. The provider investigated it and decided to make an offer of redress. What they decide to offer by way of redress is to some extent up to them. There are three further possibilities:

1) The policy only covered your husband and he has received a full refund of premiums.
2) The policy covered both of your and he has received a refund of the 50% of premiums paid for his cover.
3) The policy covered both of you, however, they have paid full redress to him and decided to let you sort it out between yourselves.

If you intended to make a complaint yourself then I would proceed in doing so and see what response you get back.

In case (3), the CMC are not responsible for the bank's redress policy. So if redress is paid to your husband, they are within their rights to take their contractual cut of that. If you consider that your are entitled to that redress then it is really between you and your ex husband.

Yorkie100

Insider101 its case 3. I think they have paid the whole redress to him less fees in both. Obtaining the money from him isn't an issue, its the fact that they have made a complaint on my behalf without my agreement and taken their fees from my half.
As I understand it, my ex was paid by the CMC not the bank.

rebeccatom

There is another possibility, that your ex signed the agreement with the CMC "for you" in which case they took it on in good faith.

You can ask the bank who has signed the letter of authority from the CMC.

I think as others have said, at this stage your best bet is with the bank, check who's name the insurance is in (not the mortgage), and do some digging about the CMC.

magpiecottage

Insider101 wrote: »

In case (3), the CMC are not responsible for the bank's redress policy. So if redress is paid to your husband, they are within their rights to take their contractual cut of that. If you consider that your are entitled to that redress then it is really between you and your ex husband.

I agree with this except that the bank was remiss if it paid all the redress to the ex when it was reasonable to suppose the OP was equally entitled.

So I would make a complaint to the bank in the first instance - and if necessary escalate it to FOS.

However, the OP has still told us neither who is responsible for the sale of the PPI nor who the CMC is.

Insider101

Yorkie100 wrote: »

Insider101 its case 3. I think they have paid the whole redress to him less fees in both. Obtaining the money from him isn't an issue, its the fact that they have made a complaint on my behalf without my agreement and taken their fees from my half.
As I understand it, my ex was paid by the CMC not the bank.

This is what I was trying to explain in my last post. They probably haven't. I seriously doubt the lender would accept anyone trying to make a complaint on your behalf without your signature. What has probably happened is that they have made a complaint on your ex husband's behalf and the bank have offered him a full refund of all the premiums on the policy.

It would be unusual for the bank to pay to the CMC. Most CMCs put clauses to this effect in their paperwork (I.e that any redress must be paid to them) and most banks completely ignore it. However, as you haven't said who the bank is I can't really comment further. If the bank did pay the CMC then the CMC would pay to him less their cut.

Your posts presume that any redress entitlement is half your entitlement and half his. This is the line that most banks take. However, it is not actually set out in regulation anywhere that I am aware of and some banks may take the line that they will pay full redress to whoever complains and any dispute over entitlement is between the insured parties.

Insider101

magpiecottage wrote: »

I agree with this except that the bank was remiss if it paid all the redress to the ex when it was reasonable to suppose the OP was equally entitled.

So I would make a complaint to the bank in the first instance - and if necessary escalate it to FOS.

However, the OP has still told us neither who is responsible for the sale of the PPI nor who the CMC is.

Probably fair enough comment. I would agree the suggested course of action.

magpiecottage

Insider101 wrote: »

Your posts presume that any redress entitlement is half your entitlement and half his. This is the line that most banks take. However, it is not actually set out in regulation anywhere that I am aware of and some banks may take the line that they will pay full redress to whoever complains and any dispute over entitlement is between the insured parties.

This is a risk for a bank because it will not have a proper discharge of any liability.

Insider101

magpiecottage wrote: »

This is a risk for a bank because it will not have a proper discharge of any liability.

It is a risk, but it's one some banks may be comfortable with. As far as I am aware it is an untested area. I'm not aware of any FOS decisions on the matter.

magpiecottage

Nor am I - although I am aware of cases where FOS has refused to consider a joint case where only one customer has complained about a joint policy.