Nat West - Decreasing term mortgage insurance

Small1

Hi - I have been trying to pursue a claim with Nat West/RBS for mis-sold decreasing life insurance which I was told I had to take out when I obtained my first mortgage in 1993. I already had other financial security in place. I managed to cancel this in 2007 when I contacted Nat West to query this and was told me it was no longer a requirement and no longer needed. I wrote with instruction to cancel the insurance along with my complaint - which they received as the insurance was duly cancelled, but there was no reply to the complaint. I didn't follow this up further at the time and am now told because I did not do this, and for the length of time that has lapsed, that they will not entertain the claim. Has anyone else had a similar experience? Is it worth the effort to now pass their claim rejection to the Financial Ombudsman?

[Deleted User]

The Ombudsman cannot overturn the time bar in the circumstances you describe.

Thrugelmir

Small1 wrote: »

Hi - I have been trying to pursue a claim with Nat West/RBS for mis-sold decreasing life insurance which I was told I had to take out when I obtained my first mortgage in 1993.

If that was a condition of the mortgage offer at the time then that's what it was. Lenders terms and conditions continually change.

dunstonh

These is duplicate post which is getting responses too.

However, repeating myself, these are the following issues

1 - banks did insist on life assurance until the mid to later 90s. They were allowed to (and still are) and it is not a mis-sale reason.
2 - it is barred from further complaint due to timebar.
3 - FOS is not accessible due to timebar

So, unless the response had the wrong address on it, it is the end of the road. However, the reason, as given, is a weak one. So, its not as if anything is being lost here.