Feel conned by Halifax

Louisee77

Hi

I wondered if anyone else has had this experience with Halifax. My 70 year old parents have been paying over £400 a year to Halifax for their building insurance. They did so because they were told it was a condition of their deeds being stored by Halifax, they also had to leave £125 in their mortgage account. When my mother went to renew her insurance last week she was told by a member of staff that land registry now store the deeds and she's paying way too much for her insurance. I've just done an online comparison and she's been quote £96 for buildings and contents. There's also a quote from Halifax for £110! This seems like a big con that's had them paying over the odds because they thought it's what they had to do to have their deeds stored. Has anyone else had this experience?

Thanks

DUTR

The con , is you and/or your parents didn't look around for competitive quotes. Deeds are electronic now, I had my paper copy long before clearing my mortgage.

dunstonh

e. I've just done an online comparison and she's been quote £96 for buildings and contents.

Although that is probably not like for like as old Halifax plans would be full accidental and personal possessions. You dont get that for £96. Although you can get it cheaper than £400.

This seems like a big con that's had them paying over the odds because they thought it's what they had to do to have their deeds stored. Has anyone else had this experience?

There is no con. Every year they get their renewal and every year they are free to accept or reject it. Old policies do get more expensive over time as there are less people on those policies to share the load.

antrobus

Louisee77 wrote: »

... When my mother went to renew her insurance last week she was told by a member of staff that land registry now store the deeds ...

The Land Registry don't store deeds. What the Land Registry does is register the ownership of property so that the deeds become irrelevant. Compulsory registration was phased in over a long period of time, so it is perfectly possible (depending on where the property is to be found) that your parents' title is unregistered and that the deeds still matter.

It might be worth checking up on that.

Goldiegirl

Prior to around 2003, the Title Deeds for all properties were valuable documents.


So the Halifax's Deedstore Scheme was helpful to people. They kept the mortgage open with a small amount, which was interest free if the balance didn't increase. (at the outset the mortgage only needed a £1 balance, with later accounts the required balance was £125). So people could store their deeds safely, and for free, instead of paying their solicitors or banks to do it.


So there's no con there - it was a good idea for your parents to keep their deeds safely.


After 2003, when the Land Registry details were held electronically for registered properties, Halifax closed Deedstore, although existing Deedstore customers could still keep their Deeds in the scheme.


This was very valuable to the owners of non registered properties, and it's a good idea, as suggested, to get this checked out.


It was never a requirement for Deedstore customers to have their property insurance with the Halifax.


I would suggest that maybe your parents thought they had to have their insurance with the Halifax - after all you can't really expect the Halifax to tell their customers they can have their insurance with Direct Line or another competitor. It'd be like Sainsbury's telling their customers they could shop with Tesco if they wanted.


There's no con - your parents have accepted the renewal each year, and nobody forced them to do this.

karvala

I would say I'm surprised by the number of people taking the "caveat emptor" line here, but I suspect it's because by its very nature the forum is full of people well aware of their consumer rights.

However, in my view there are two things wrong with this view. First, in this specific case, the OP's parents were told that the £400 policy was a condition of housing the title deeds. They were not told when this stopped being the case, which is a clear case of mis-selling.

More generally, though, this speaks of an abhorrent business model which is based on ripping of the consumer. Of course businesses want to make profits and so I'm not surprised that they are trying it; what I am surprised at/disappointed by is the number of turkeys voting for Christmas, i.e. the number of consumers who appear to be have bought the argument that it's up to them not to be caught out by the various scams which businesses try. How about the businesses taking some responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions for their customers?

Selling people something expensive which you know they don't need and wouldn't want if they understood it, and keeping quiet about it, is tantamount to fraud. Don't take my word for it, look at PPI. How long before consumers are going to wake up to this, and stop blaming themselves/each other every time businesses successfully con them?

dunstonh

First, in this specific case, the OP's parents were told that the £400 policy was a condition of housing the title deeds.

Not quite. There was never a requirement for them to have home insurance with the lender if they retained the deeds with them. However, it would have been a requirement when they started the mortgage to have the insurance with them. That sort of thing was common up to around the late 90s/early 2000s. The info the OP posted is not accurate for the lender in question. Its probably a mixture of a third party conversation of something the parents recall being told 20 or so years ago.

They were not told when this stopped being the case, which is a clear case of mis-selling.

Mis-sale relates to point of sale. Not things that change later. So, it cant have been mis-sold on that basis. Every year they got a renewal notice through. They were free to shop around and decide whether the added benefit of deeds retention was worth the price being paid. Every year they made the decision to stay. Halifax allowed people to buy their own insurance from around 1998 ish.

How about the businesses taking some responsibility for their actions and the consequences of those actions for their customers?

How about the consumer takes responsibility for their actions too? Consumers are free to buy whatever they want from whomever they want. Choice is good but its only good if you use it.

karvala

dunstonh wrote: »

Not quite. There was never a requirement for them to have home insurance with the lender if they retained the deeds with them. However, it would have been a requirement when they started the mortgage to have the insurance with them. That sort of thing was common up to around the late 90s/early 2000s. The info the OP posted is not accurate for the lender in question. Its probably a mixture of a third party conversation of something the parents recall being told 20 or so years ago.

I think we have to operate on the assumption that the info the OP provided is accurate, unless there is evidence to the contrary. The company policy at that time is one thing, but the individual experience of those particular customers may have been quite different. There may well not have been a requirement, but I wouldn't be confident that the customers weren't told that there was a requirement. It's not as if mis-selling has never occurred now, is it?

dunstonh wrote: »

Mis-sale relates to point of sale. Not things that change later. So, it cant have been mis-sold on that basis. Every year they got a renewal notice through. They were free to shop around and decide whether the added benefit of deeds retention was worth the price being paid. Every year they made the decision to stay. Halifax allowed people to buy their own insurance from around 1998 ish.

The point of sale occurs on every renewal, not just the first time a particular company is used. Businesses are not absolved of the need to ensure that a policy is appropriate for the customer just because that customer had a policy with them the previous year.

dunstonh wrote: »

How about the consumer takes responsibility for their actions too? Consumers are free to buy whatever they want from whomever they want. Choice is good but its only good if you use it.

Both should have responsibility, but it seems that you want all the responsibility to be with the consumers. It's rather like saying that if someone's home is burgled, it's their fault for not securing the property well enough, because after all why should burglars feel responsible for the well-being of other people's homes. Yes, you should make an effort to secure your home, to save you a lot of grief. But if someone parts you from your property, knowing it's not in your best interests, should they be held responsible? Yes, of course they should.

dunstonh

The point of sale occurs on every renewal, not just the first time a particular company is used. Businesses are not absolved of the need to ensure that a policy is appropriate for the customer just because that customer had a policy with them the previous year.

No its not. Point of sale would have been the original date. If any complaint is made, then that is the only date that matters.

Both should have responsibility, but it seems that you want all the responsibility to be with the consumers.

Not at all. However, if the person is given a renewal every year stating the price and what to do if they do not wish to renew then it is up to the person to choose whether they renew it or not.

There is far too much nanny state nowadays and it allows people to absolve their personal responsibility in too many areas. There has to be a happy medium.