PPI Claim Rejected by Nationwide

dneale123

tony6403's story is exactly the same as mine. In my case Nationwide pointed out at the time that PPI was a condition of the mortgage offer and refused to allow me to proceed without accepting it - I opted for an extra monthly payment (on top of their own indemnity insurance of 1% for the first year).

Eventually I cancelled the PPI myself about 5 years later and Nationwide accepted this without question. When I submitted my claim recently the response from Nationwide says that their acceptance of my cancellation was 'a concession' and that I should have continued with it until age 65 (or, as it turned out, when I eventually remortgaged with another provider).

When I took out the mortgage Nationwide admitted that I had enough savings to cover the payments in the event of being unable to work, and my employer would have paid me for at least 6 months at full salary in the event of sickness. Like tony6403, Nationwide rejected my claim telling me that I didn't have to accept their mortgage offer.

So yes, I admit that I went in with eyes open at the time and can't claim that the insurance wouldn't have paid out under certain circumstances. I can, however, claim that I didn't need or want the insurance but was given no choice. The fundamental question is whether it is possible to claim in the light of more recent events that the inclusion of compulsory PPI in the conditions for being granted a mortgage would in itself constitute mis-selling. This appears not to be the case but I can't find any concrete evidence of this. Can anyone point to any FOS rulings on this?

societys_child

The fundamental question is whether it is possible to claim in the light of more recent events that the inclusion of compulsory PPI in the conditions for being granted a mortgage would in itself constitute mis-selling

Not if it was a requirement at the time. See posts #3 #4 and #5.

dneale123

Thanks - what I was looking for was an example of a FOS ruling to put this matter to bed. In the end I think I've managed to answer my own question by finding this FOS case study - number 118/6 describes such a ruling [I'm not permitted to post the link]. What I wasn't sure of was whether lenders were within their rights at the time to insist on PPI as part of the conditions of a loan or whether the small print was in fact unenforceable in law. The former does appear to be the case according to the FOS.

[Deleted User]

dneale123 wrote: »

What I wasn't sure of was whether lenders were within their rights at the time to insist on PPI

They were (and are) able to do exactly that. Of course, potential customers are free to shop elsewhere if they don't like that condition.

Not mis-sold.

tony6403

Notwithstanding the negativity that most had about my claim , Nationwide have finally coughed up.
I am now going to carefully consider my options for investing their compensation of £3.22.

[Deleted User]

tony6403 wrote: »

Notwithstanding the negativity that most had about my claim , Nationwide have finally coughed up.
I am now going to carefully consider my options for investing their compensation of £3.22.

They've "coughed up" a refund your Plevin commission. The complaint itself therefore remains rejected.

Don't spend all the money at once..

dunstonh

tony6403 wrote: »

Notwithstanding the negativity that most had about my claim , Nationwide have finally coughed up.
I am now going to carefully consider my options for investing their compensation of £3.22.

Nobody was negative about the plevin outcome. You dont expect much on an MPPI plevin refund. Its loan and credit card where the big amounts are.

Sharpemum

This is a ppi enquiry but not directly related to the current thread. Apologies for interrupting the thread and please direct me elsewhere if these are inappropriate queries.
My husband was employed by his father so employment totally secure, he had £10,000 in savings, this in early eighties. His father sold us a substantial property for £30,000 (father had to pay CGTax as it was undersold) In spite of his savings, this being a family firm, husband on low wages although job secure. We had the devil of a job to get accepted for a mortgage, only Cheshire BS would take us on and then only for an interest only mortgage. They wouldn’t let us use £5k of savings to reduce mortgage and have a normal mortgage. We had to pay about £118 per year for insurance in case we couldn’t repay. The house was valued at £70k. We were paying interest only mortgage at 12% to 14% for years. D o we have case?

Nasqueron

Sharpemum wrote: »

This is a ppi enquiry but not directly related to the current thread. Apologies for interrupting the thread and please direct me elsewhere if these are inappropriate queries.
My husband was employed by his father so employment totally secure, he had £10,000 in savings, this in early eighties. His father sold us a substantial property for £30,000 (father had to pay CGTax as it was undersold) In spite of his savings, this being a family firm, husband on low wages although job secure. We had the devil of a job to get accepted for a mortgage, only Cheshire BS would take us on and then only for an interest only mortgage. They wouldn’t let us use £5k of savings to reduce mortgage and have a normal mortgage. We had to pay about £118 per year for insurance in case we couldn’t repay. The house was valued at £70k. We were paying interest only mortgage at 12% to 14% for years. D o we have case?

Are you sure the insurance wasn't MIG not PPI given the time period? MIG was to protect the lender and was a condition of the mortgage, you either got a bigger deposit or went to another lender. MIG is not miss-sold

Sharpemum

This is a ppi enquiry but not directly related to the current thread. Apologies for interrupting the thread and please direct me elsewhere if these are inappropriate queries.
My husband was employed by his father so employment totally secure, he had £10,000 in savings, this in early eighties. His father sold us a substantial property for £30,000 (father had to pay CGTax as it was undersold) In spite of his savings, this being a family firm, husband on low wages although job secure. We had the devil of a job to get accepted for a mortgage, only Cheshire BS would take us on and then only for an interest only mortgage. They wouldn’t let us use £5k of savings to reduce mortgage and have a normal mortgage. We had to pay about £118 per year for insurance in case we couldn’t repay. The house was valued at £70k. We were paying interest only mortgage at 12% to 14% for years. D o we have case?