PPI (claim reg the old Woolwich B/Soc

slenderfoodfish

Hi
This is the first post that I have ever written - please excuse any mistake!


I have contacted Barclays - who are now responsible for the old Woolwich B/Soc - regarding an old mortgage that was offered to my late husband and me conditional to us taking out sickness and home/buildings insurance with the providers.


We paid this for approx. 27 years but when I moved house several years ago; the documents were disposed of and now I do not have the policy references


Despite sending comprehensive details of dates, addresses and my late husband and my details, Barclays will not proceed as they say that they have been unable to allocate our details.


I feel quite angry at this as we both worked long and hard hours to pay what was quite a large amount for many years. We had no choice and now my husband is no longer here. I feel that I have a duty to him to try my best to get some sort of compensation.


Sorry for going on a bit but would anyone advise as to whether or not it would benefit any approach to the ombudsman please?

societys_child

First of all, it's pointless getting angry, if you've no details and they haven't, what do you want them to do?
Compensation for what? It's usual to require insurance on mortgages.

What year did you take out the mortgage with The Woolwich and when was it paid off?

dunstonh

We paid this for approx. 27 years

So, the chances of any documentation from prior to regulation existing are slim.

conditional to us taking out sickness and home/buildings insurance with the providers.

Which is quite normal for the era. 1980s still had the banks insisting on their home insurance and often their own life assurance. That was allowed and is not a reason for complaint.

Despite sending comprehensive details of dates, addresses and my late husband and my details, Barclays will not proceed as they say that they have been unable to allocate our details.

Could be many reasons.
1 - Maybe it wasnt MPPI but was life assurance. MPPi was not common in the 80s. Life assurance was though.
2 - Maybe it was done via a mortgage broker, adviser, estate agent or solicitor. Woolwich did a lot of mortgages that way. In which case, they would never know what insurances you had as they would have been through third parties. (And Barclays have no liability for third party sales)
3 - It was close to 30 years ago. Its no wonder. Data protection requires destruction of records no longer required.

I feel quite angry at this as we both worked long and hard hours to pay what was quite a large amount for many years.

Bit silly feeling angry.
1 - it sounds like you had to have it - so not a mis-sale reason
2 - most MPPI complaints fail. Banks only set theirs up as monthly premium which is how it should be. Single premium MPPi didnt exist in the 80s.
3 - You destroyed your records. So, why is it good for you to and not them?

I feel that I have a duty to him to try my best to get some sort of compensation.

Yet you havent given any reasons for compensation.

Sorry for going on a bit but would anyone advise as to whether or not it would benefit any approach to the ombudsman please?

The ombudman doesnt keep records of the banks or building societies and would not be able to locate information. Plus, you dont appear to have a reason for complaint and its probable that you didnt even have MPPI (more likely life assurance given the era)

-taff

Your insurances were conditional to the mortgage. You accepted this at the time.
You are way too late to complain about something you have no records for and they have no records for.

Let it go and stop being angry.
If you had needed these insurances to pay out, I don't doubt they would have, so be thankful you didn't need them to while you had them.

slenderfoodfish

Thanks to all who kindly replied to my post.
It was good to read your thoughts on the matter and I can see more clearly that you all have a point.
I shall let it rest.

magpiecottage

The Building Societies Ombudsman, the relevant predecessor to FOS, only came into existence in 1987.

That means, in this instance, the jurisdiction of FOS will go back to 1987.

That was 28 years ago. We know that the loan ran for 27 years and ended several years ago. Assuming "several" equates to more than one, it seems to follow that FOS would have no jurisdiction anyway.