Santander / Abbey National PPI claim - not accepted

al2u72

Have a slightly interesting situation with Santander regarding a PPI I've submitted. The PPI was sold as part of a mortgage application. My financial situation wasn't great and I had to lay down a big deposit to progress the mortgage application thanks to a CCJ that was about to expire in the year of my application. I was also told that I had to take the PPI out to improve my chances of acceptance.

The mortgage was taken out with Abbey National and it was to buy the flat I was renting at the time which I just didn't want to leave - I think they sensed this!

Anyway, flat now sold and now renting a house with my young family and have decided to claim back the mis-sold PPI. Santander who bought out Abbey National shortly after I took out the mortgage have said that they fully believe the salesman and that the benefits were advantageous at the time - I now have evidence that I would have got 5 months pay after 1 month and an additional 5 months half-pay after that thanks to working for a Council with excellent sickness benefits. There is a claim for not properly disclosing the commission for selling the PPI but that just doesn't cut it. I remember the aggressive nature of the salesman that I had to have the PPI for the mortgage to have a good chance of acceptance and quite honestly, I just didn't want it - money was tight enough without the additional fees.

Question is - how best to argue this one out - Santander are so adamant that the PPI was sold correctly but yet how do they know? Mortgage was taken out in 2002 so it's a long time ago but I do have an email stating the T and C's of my employment at the time.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

magpiecottage

al2u72 wrote: »

I was also told that I had to take the PPI out to improve my chances of acceptance.

This will work, provided

1. You can prove that you were told this
2. You can show it was not true.

al2u72 wrote: »

I now have evidence that I would have got 1 months pay after 5 months and an additional 1 months half-pay after that thanks to working for a Council with excellent sickness benefits.

What you are saying is if you had fallen ill, you would have received full pay for just one month. After that you would have received half pay for just one more month. Then you would have gone onto Statutory Sick Pay, which is peanuts. So that seems to be good reason for you to have PPI - as well as providing protection against losing your job through redundancy.

al2u72 wrote: »

There is a claim for not properly disclosing the commission for selling the PPI but that just doesn't cut it.

Probably because there was no requirement to disclose it at the time.

al2u72 wrote: »

I remember the aggressive nature of the salesman that I had to have the PPI for the mortgage to have a good chance of acceptance

As I say, you need to provide evidence to support this assertion.

[QUOTE=al2u72;71475597Question_is_-_how_best_to_argue_this_one_out_-_Santander_are_so_adamant_that_the_PPI_was_sold_correctly_but_yet_how_do_they_know?[/QUOTE]You are the one making the assertion that it was missold. Therefore it is for you to prove that your assertion is more likely than not (and not merely equally likely) to be true - rather than for them to disprove it.

So, as I say, you need to produce evidence to support your assertions.

Nasqueron

al2u72 wrote: »

Have a slightly interesting situation with Santander regarding a PPI I've submitted. The PPI was sold as part of a mortgage application. My financial situation wasn't great and I had to lay down a big deposit to progress the mortgage application thanks to a CCJ that was about to expire in the year of my application. I was also told that I had to take the PPI out to improve my chances of acceptance.

The mortgage was taken out with Abbey National and it was to buy the flat I was renting at the time which I just didn't want to leave - I think they sensed this!

Was it a broker or bought directly from the bank?

CCJ suggests problems with finance in the past, PPI would help cover you

al2u72 wrote: »

Anyway, flat now sold and now renting a house with my young family and have decided to claim back the mis-sold PPI. Santander who bought out Abbey National shortly after I took out the mortgage have said that they fully believe the salesman and that the benefits were advantageous at the time - I now have evidence that I would have got 1 months pay after 5 months and an additional 1 months half-pay after that thanks to working for a Council with excellent sickness benefits.

So are you saying you would get 1 months pay after 5 months off sick? Or 5 months full pay?

What if you were ill for 7 months or 12? What if you lost your job?

Did you present this evidence at the time of the complaint?

al2u72 wrote: »

There is a claim for not properly disclosing the commission for selling the PPI but that just doesn't cut it.

Only an issue if it was more than 50% (see Plevin)

al2u72 wrote: »

I remember the aggressive nature of the salesman that I had to have the PPI for the mortgage to have a good chance of acceptance and quite honestly, I just didn't want it - money was tight enough without the additional fees.

Can you prove that?
Money being tight simply strengthens the case for PPI being useful

al2u72 wrote: »

Question is - how best to argue this one out - Santander are so adamant that the PPI was sold correctly but yet how do they know? Mortgage was taken out in 2002 so it's a long time ago but I do have an email stating the T and C's of my employment at the time.

Any advice would be gratefully received.

The way to argue it out is to prove your case, you are the accuser, it is up to you to do this.

If they have rejected it with a final letter and mentioned the right to refer to FOS then you will not get any further with the bank unless you have provided new evidence not part of the original complaint.

dunstonh

I now have evidence that I would have got 1 months pay after 5 months and an additional 1 months half-pay after that thanks to working for a Council with excellent sickness benefits.

That is nothing special. Remember this is MPPI. Not PPI. It is covering a long term debt with lifestyle changing consequences if it goes unpaid. The FOS have been rejecting complaints where the sick pay is 12 months. Its not an issue with MPPI.

There is a claim for not properly disclosing the commission for selling the PPI but that just doesn't cut it.

Depends on the requirements in place in the year it was bought. Also, it doesnt apply to banks selling their own product. In respect of the Plevin ruling, commission is an issue when it is more than 50%. MPPI is not more than 50% (typically around the 30% mark).

I remember the aggressive nature of the salesman that I had to have the PPI for the mortgage to have a good chance of acceptance and quite honestly, I just didn't want it - money was tight enough without the additional fees.

That is an unprovable allegation. If you had complained within weeks, then this complaint is credible. However, the longer time goes on, the less credibility this type of complaint has. Yours was so long ago, that it has no credibility.

If money was tight, then it actually increases the financial need for MPPI. Not reduce it.

Question is - how best to argue this one out - Santander are so adamant that the PPI was sold correctly but yet how do they know? Mortgage was taken out in 2002 so it's a long time ago but I do have an email stating the T and C's of my employment at the time.

Most MPPI complaints are not successful and the FOS reject most MPPI complaints too. Your reasons for complaint are weak and mostly unprovable or not relevant. So, the rejection of the complaint sounds reasonable.

Remember that MPPI is still available today. It is one of two types that are still retailed.

Ultimately, if you dont like the response then you can go to the FOS. However, do be aware the FOS have been rejecting people with 12 months sick pay and rarely uphold any unprovable allegations unless recent. They would need to identify another failure but from what you say, there doesnt appear to be one.