Sesame Mortgage PPI - Refusal to reopen

Rob_Wilson

Hi,

We are attempting to get our mortgage PPI re-opened, but Sesame are refusing.

What are our legal rights to make them re-assess our claim?

Thanks for any advice given.

Regards,


Rob

antrobus

Rob_Wilson wrote: »

Hi,

We are attempting to get our mortgage PPI re-opened, but Sesame are refusing.

What are our legal rights to make them re-assess our claim?

Thanks for any advice given.

Regards,


Rob

Are you talking about a claim against the policy, or a complaint about the sale?

What are your grounds for requesting that they reconsider the matter?

[Deleted User]

Rob_Wilson wrote: »

We are attempting to get our mortgage PPI re-opened, but Sesame are refusing.

If you have complained and been rejected, then you can only complain again if you have significant evidence not in your original complaint.

It sounds as if you don't have any such additional evidence or Sesame would not be refusing to re-open the complaint.

You cannot simply keep complaining about the same thing.

How long ago did you first complain and what reasons were given for rejection?

Rob_Wilson wrote: »

What are our legal rights to make them re-assess our claim?

PPI mis-selling is not a legal issue.

magpiecottage

You have not told us when the policy was sold, which member of Sesame sold it to you or when Sesame rejected your complaint.

Without that information, we cannot guide you.

dunstonh

What are our legal rights to make them re-assess our claim?

None unless you can provide significant new evidence which would likely change the outcome of your complaint (and I assume you complaint rather than claim)

You get ample time to appeal a decision made by a firm.

magpiecottage

We don't actually know when the original complaint was rejected. If less than six months ago then the OP can still go to FOS.

We also do not know if the PPI was sold under Sesame's authority. If it was before 14 January 2004, it may not have been - in which case Sesame would have no case to answer.

Otherwise. if the six month limit has passed, the OP can ask FOS to look at the complaint and it will ask Sesame if it is willing to waive the limit - I predict that Sesame will give a two letter reply ending in "o".

If that is the case, the OP will have to show either that there were exceptional circumstances preventing them from going to FOS sooner or that new evidence, not previously available, has come to light.

"Not previously available" does not simply mean "has been found". It would need to be something which was in the possession of a third party, not the complainant or the business and not something they could previously have simply asked somebody, such as the insurance company that issued the policy, for.

saverjustice

As far as I am aware Sesame never sold PPI

dunstonh

saverjustice wrote: »

As far as I am aware Sesame never sold PPI

Sesame are a network of member adviser firms. So, it would have been one of those firms. However, they have a very low complaint rate on MPPI and most get rejected. In part because its MPPI and the product itself sees most complaints rejected. In part because PPI is not generally an adviser issue and audit trails are much better with advisers and in part because Sesame only carry liability for post 14th Jan 2005 sales. They can automatically reject pre-2005 sales.

Rob_Wilson

Hi

Thanks for all the replies. Apologies for the late showing, I work in IT and need a rest looking at the screen all the time!

Firstly, the PPI was a "requirement" for getting the mortgage finalised, and this was advice from an IFA. Which was not actually true. The mortgage was sold by the IFA who was part of company that sold financial products.

The policy was very expensive, and when we did try and claim from the policy, when I was made redundant. The long list of small print came out, and then we realised it was not actually fit for purpose. The mortgage was arranged in November 2002. The original company that sold the Mortgage was taken over by Sesame. We have been trying to claim for the past 5 years.

Sesame refuse to re-opened the case.

It's all quite frustrating to be honest!

Thanks for all the advice.

Rob

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

They can automatically reject pre-2005 sales.

Rob_Wilson wrote: »

The mortgage was arranged in November 2002.

Rob_Wilson wrote: »

It's all quite frustrating to be honest!

Indeed.

Five years of wasted effort.

Why didn't you research about pre-reguation before now?

dunstonh

Firstly, the PPI was a "requirement" for getting the mortgage finalised, and this was advice from an IFA. Which was not actually true. The mortgage was sold by the IFA who was part of company that sold financial products.

It may have been true. Many brokers require the purchase of insurance to give "free" mortgage advice. A very common model. Except that the compulsion is by the broker/adviser. Not the lender. That model is allowed as long as the insurance is suitable.

The policy was very expensive, and when we did try and claim from the policy, when I was made redundant. The long list of small print came out, and then we realised it was not actually fit for purpose. The mortgage was arranged in November 2002. The original company that sold the Mortgage was taken over by Sesame. We have been trying to claim for the past 5 years.

Sesame never bought companies. Most MPPi is fit for purpose. However, there are always going to be some exclusions.

We have been trying to claim for the past 5 years.

Sesame refuse to re-opened the case.

The complaint is dead and buried. its game over.