Life Assurance not PPI?

addedvaluebob

I will make it very simple for you

The bank had a requirement to provide best advice - this applies to all the banks employees and the clerk that you refer to, without any knowledge of the circumstances of the sale, should have referred the OPs mother to a financial adviser regarding life cover and the suitability or not of taking a new policy.

It is not a legally enforceable condition of taking the loan unless it is written down, being told it was a condition was a lie unless the bank can show it within the T & C s. Can you please post a copy of your banks terms and conditions and then prove that these conditions were applied in this case when you don't even know if this was your bank doing the lending.

If you have a problem with people making complaints then perhaps this is not the site for you. The banks have paid out billions for mis-selling everything from pension transfers, endowments and now PPI and yet somehow you seem to think that nothing was ever mis-sold and that all these people are somehow conning the banks into giving them compensation for their past actions.

dunstonh

I will make it very simple for you

The bank had a requirement to provide best advice - this applies to all the banks employees and the clerk that you refer to, without any knowledge of the circumstances of the sale, should have referred the OPs mother to a financial adviser regarding life cover and the suitability or not of taking a new policy.

We are talking pre-regulation and tied agents. However, if the life assurance was a condition of borrowing (which was quite normal until the late 90s), then suitability is met. Bank needs it. Sale fulfils that need.

It is not a legally enforceable condition of taking the loan unless it is written down, being told it was a condition was a lie unless the bank can show it within the T & C s. Can you please post a copy of your banks terms and conditions and then prove that these conditions were applied in this case when you don't even know if this was your bank doing the lending.

Not required. Although you do see it on agreements with later cases.

And as the ombudman says:
In terms of HSBC’s requirement for life cover to be a requirement of the lending, he [the adjudicator]
considered this formed a legitimate exercise of commercial judgement on its part. As such,
this service was unable to consider the matter further.

HSBC has confirmed it was a requirement of its commercial lending to have life cover in
place prior to September 2000. This would appear to be part of the legitimate exercise of its
commercial judgement. Ultimately, it was for HSBC to determine the terms on which it would
lend to its customers. As such, this is a matter I am unable to consider further. If Mr L was
unhappy with this condition, he was free to approach another lender instead.

The banks have paid out billions for mis-selling everything from pension transfers, endowments and now PPI and yet somehow you seem to think that nothing was ever mis-sold and that all these people are somehow conning the banks into giving them compensation for their past actions.

The mis-sale rate on life assurance is tiny. You seem confused over product type.

lovinituk

Bob, you don't half post some rubbish! Certainly no added value!!

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

I have forgotten more about financial services regulation than you will ever know

That sounds like an admission of ignorance.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

particularly if you take away access to google

I remember a meeting with the FSA where they told me how much they use Google. If it provides reliable source material that is fine.

The shortcoming, as with anything else is that you need to be satisified that it is reliable. When it comes to financial services regulation, though, both the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the now repealed Financial Services Act 1986 are published by the government whilst the Financial Conduct Authority publishes its rules in a way that previous versions can also be referred to.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Yes they do when the bank lie to them and tell them it is a condition of the loan when this is 'standard practice ' to ramp up commissions regardless of need

If that is what happened then all the OP needs to do is provide evidence that the insurance was not required and evidence that they were told it was. The fact that it was pre statutory regulation will make no difference because the bank was already submitting to the jurisdiction of the Banking Ombudsman.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

it needs to be documented from the outset that life cover is a condition, without this it is just another sale on the back of a loan. Do you know that this was explained the outset or are you just re-iterating what the banks put out

Same answer as above.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

It is the bank that has the duty of care to the customer if they choose to sell policies via bank clerks then they leave themselves open to challenge by a failure to provide best advice

They only have to give best advice in relation to the products they offer - and the principle of he who asserts must prove still applies.

If the bank has a copy of the loan agreement, it must consider that agreement in addressing any complaint but if neither party has one, the complainant is unable to substantiate their assertion.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

Can we please see a copy of these terms and conditions that relate to this case because if not then 1) we don't know

Agreed - so it is for the OP to provide it.

addedvaluebob wrote: »

it is misleading to the OP to suggest that this 'standard practice' was part of the package

Maybe. But it would also be misleading to suggest that they have a valid complaint solely on the basis of an assertion that cannot be substantiated.

So I repeat, if the OP can produce evidence that their mother was told that the insurance was compulsory and a loan agreement that does not say this then they have a case. If not then they do not.

addedvaluebob

Maybe. But it would also be misleading to suggest that they have a valid complaint solely on the basis of an assertion that cannot be substantiated.

and that is the whole point, way back in this thread the OP was told it was a legitimate sale based on nothing at all. People come this forum looking for advice and are judged based on no evidence whatsoever as to the validity or otherwise of any possible complaint.

I don't know the mothers age but has it not struck anybody that the cost of a five year term policy for 15,500 seems rather expensive at £23.96 per month, maybe the policy was not properly set up either and she was sold a 10 year term or whole of life plan for a five year loan term,,, who knows

dunstonh

and that is the whole point, way back in this thread the OP was told it was a legitimate sale based on nothing at all. People come this forum looking for advice and are judged based on no evidence whatsoever as to the validity or otherwise of any possible complaint.

In post #1 it says that it was about 15 years ago and it was HSBC. We know that HSBC did insist on life assurance on commercial deals prior to Sept 2000. So, the period in question is around the time this was normal for HSBC. We also know the ombudsman accept this is a commercial decision.

So, we do have quite a lot to go on.

I don't know the mothers age but has it not struck anybody that the cost of a five year term policy for 15,500 seems rather expensive at £23.96 per month, maybe the policy was not properly set up either and she was sold a 10 year term or whole of life plan for a five year loan term,,, who knows

90s pricing was more expensive than today. So, nothing seems unusual for that level of cost. Especially a bank priced product which we know could often be upto nearly double the whole of market price.

addedvaluebob

But we still don't know the full details of the possible complaint. My point has always been that without the full details we cannot judge the rights and wrongs of the case. Whilst I accept that bank pricing was more expensive it still looks excessive for a five year term of £15,500.

magpiecottage

addedvaluebob wrote: »

and that is the whole point, way back in this thread the OP was told it was a legitimate sale based on nothing at all.

Yes - but it is for the complainant to prove their assertion that it was not, not for the respondent to prove that it was. To borrow an analogy, the respondent wins a draw on away goals. If we push the analogy a bit, own goals still count because the respondent must take account of any information it has to support the complainant but if it cannot be found it is assumed not to exist.

I don't know the mothers age but has it not struck anybody that the cost of a five year term policy for 15,500 seems rather expensive at £23.96 per month, maybe the policy was not properly set up either and she was sold a 10 year term or whole of life plan for a five year loan term,,, who knows

It was a CI and Life plan according to the OP. The premium itself is a matter of legitimate commercial judgement on the part of the insurer. However, if the term was unnecessarily long then you are correct that there may be a case to answer.

So that is where the OP should next look.