Stupid question?

retreatingblade

Hi all,
I had a 25 year mortgage through Norwich & Peterborough and paid PPI throughout. The PPI was through Norwich Union (later Aviva). Having now decided to raise a claim for PPI, do I write to N&P or Aviva?

All advice gratefully received.

Thanks

RB

Insider101

retreatingblade wrote: »

Hi all,
I had a 25 year mortgage through Norwich & Peterborough and paid PPI throughout. The PPI was through Norwich Union (later Aviva). Having now decided to raise a claim for PPI, do I write to N&P or Aviva?

All advice gratefully received.

Thanks

RB

What do you think has been done wrong, when and by who?

The answer will dictate who you make a complaint to.

dunstonh

I had a 25 year mortgage through Norwich & Peterborough and paid PPI throughout. The PPI was through Norwich Union (later Aviva). Having now decided to raise a claim for PPI, do I write to N&P or Aviva?

1 - Was it PPI or a different insurance (such as life assurance)?
2 - Why do you think that is wrong (i.e. what is your reason for complaint)?
3 - Who sold it to you?

retreatingblade

Sorry for the delay - been away a few days.

At the time of getting the mortgage I was rather given the impression that the PPI through N&P's Safeguard scheme was compulsory and a condition of the mortgage. It rankled with me a little as I was in (and continued to be until retirement) a very well paid job with 12 months on full pay in the event of sickness or incapacity. I felt that would have given me a 'buffer' in the event of a problem.

Thirty years on it appears that PPI was not compulsory and I believe I may have a case for miss-selling.

WatchMan

retreatingblade wrote: »

Sorry for the delay - been away a few days.

At the time of getting the mortgage I was rather given the impression that the PPI through N&P's Safeguard scheme was compulsory and a condition of the mortgage. It rankled with me a little as I was in (and continued to be until retirement) a very well paid job with 12 months on full pay in the event of sickness or incapacity. I felt that would have given me a 'buffer' in the event of a problem.

Thirty years on it appears that PPI was not compulsory and I believe I may have a case for miss-selling.

In that case, your complaint is with whoever sold you the policy - probably Norwich and Peterborough.

Be aware that complaints about policies sold alongside mortgages are less likely to be upheld. It is generally thought having mortgage repayments protected would be important to most people. Even if they had good sick pay - the mortgage protection would still provide cover and maybe for longer than sick pay would last.

Your particular complaint often boils down to a he said/she said situation. Often the paperwork will show that PPI was an option which had to be selected - and demonstrating that you were led to believe otherwise will be difficult.

You should still complain if you feel strongly about all this. But it's good going in knowing what the issues are likely to be and your chances of success.

magpiecottage

retreatingblade wrote: »

I was rather given the impression that the PPI through N&P's Safeguard scheme was compulsory and a condition of the mortgage

I'm afraid that simply being given the impression is not the same as being told it was compulsory. In any case, you would need evidence to prove not only that the PPI existed but that you were actually misled about it.

retreatingblade wrote: »

I was in (and continued to be until retirement) a very well paid job with 12 months on full pay in the event of sickness or incapacity.

The mere fact that you did not have the "good" fortune to suffer a claimable event does not mean an insurance policy was missold.

retreatingblade wrote: »

Thirty years on it appears that PPI was not compulsory and I believe I may have a case for miss-selling.

There is an interesting point. The policy was supposedly sold in 1986.

That could mean that it predates the existence of the Norwich and Peterborough (which was formed by a merger of the Norwich Building Society and, surprise surprise, the Peterborough Building Society in that year).

It also seems unlikely to have been PPI or even its predecessor, ASU, which was uncommon in the 1980s.

If it did exist, it may indeed have been compulsory as it was not uncommon for lenders to make an insurance product a condition of the loan then.

In addition, FOS would only have jurisdiction if the lender was either a member of an ombudsman scheme at the time or volunteered jurisdiction.

Neither the Norwich, the Peterborough nor the Norwich & Peterborough were members of the Building Societies Ombudsman scheme in 1986 because it only began in 1987.

antrobus

magpiecottage wrote: »

... It also seems unlikely to have been PPI or even its predecessor, ASU, which was uncommon in the 1980s....

I have found this reference to the Norwich Union SafeGuard product dating to 2000 when it was relaunched, and described as an "income protection product" that is a "perfect fit with mortgage payment protection insurance".


What it was like in 1986 I don't know (the internet doesn't go back that far), and you probably know better than me what it all means.



http://www.aviva.co.uk/media-centre/story/780/a-better-income-protection-deal-from-norwich-union/

dunstonh

Also, pre 1988, the building societies didnt often have their own in-house product. They would use local agents/IFAs for non-building society stuff (like insurance and investments). These appointments were often held in the branch in their spare office.