Should I claim?

Jayjay08

Looking for advice.
I'm 13 years into my mortgage, it's 12 to go, over the course of 13 years I have paid PPI on it. Around £130 PA. It only covered unemployment benefit. I think iv been midsold the policy as we were first time buyers and more or less told it was compulsory. While it hasn't been a bad thing to have I'm now thinking I might claim the 13 years back. Would this be possible, Is this a good idea? Both th PPI and the mortgage are still active.
If I was to be made redundant and claim on my PPI for my mortgage for the full year it would pay out around £3600. I Think I I would get that amount back if I made a successful claim for the previous 13 years and if I was made redundant then it would more or less cover the same amount. Am I correct in thinking like this?
So, should I make a claim or just let the PPI keep running?

[Deleted User]

You don't seem to have much a reason for complaining it was mis sold.

What is your complaint exactly?

Jayjay08

I didn't need it, if I was made redundant I would have got a substantial redundancy payment, I also had other money that could have covered the mortgage.
I just think now that we were kind of pushed into it as we were a bit naive and it was our first mortgage.

Nearlyold

Did you have the "substantial redundancy payment available to you" when you took out the mortgage - presumably you had 13 years less service then. (Redundancy pay is not guaranteed anyway)

Did you have this other money available when you took out the mortgage how many years payments would it have covered?

TBH it comes across like you are trying to invent some sort of complaint in order to get some compo.

Nasqueron

It's possible the insurance was compulsory if bought through a broker in return for free advice. This is fine and not a miss-sale as you can pay them for advice instead.

When you got the mortgage did you have lots of years of redundancy pay and were you employed by somewhere like the civil service or a private firm? A private firm has no guaranteed redundancy, if they go under, you get much less or even nothing

If you had savings to pay off the mortgage, why did you have a mortgage? Most people underestimate the amount they need as a buffer between losing jobs, 3+ months of full pay to cover all bills at a minimum, 6 would be safer when considering a long term debt like a mortgage

You could always cancel it now if you don't feel it's worth it. Just hope you don't lose your job

Jayjay08

TBH, it seems like everyone else and their granny is inventing some sort of complaint to get some compo.
I would have had around 14 years service of redundancy pay at the time of taking out the mortgage and I had sufficient savings aswell.
I didn't mean I could have paid of the mortgage but I would have been able to cover the year that the PPI was going to cover.

dunstonh

I didn't need it, if I was made redundant I would have got a substantial redundancy payment

Redundancy payments are not guaranteed and when they are paid, they are usually based on term of service. MPPI does not overlap with redundancy. So, its not normally included as a reason not to have MPPI.

TBH, it seems like everyone else and their granny is inventing some sort of complaint to get some compo.

That is a fair view. Most companies report that around half the complaints they get about PPI (making all sorts of allegations of wrongdoing) dont even have PPI.

and I had sufficient savings aswell.

Sufficient savings is typically around 2 years worth of household income. Was it that sufficient?

I didn't mean I could have paid of the mortgage but I would have been able to cover the year that the PPI was going to cover.

What about all the other bills?

BTW, did you buy via a broker/adviser or direct with lender? If the former, then you are looking at a pre-regulation complaint anyway and that makes the whole discussion irrelevant.

Jayjay08

Please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subjust in hand, this is why I'm here asking advice from people more knowledgeable than myself.
The PPI was set up through my mortgage lender, the YBS with Cardiff pinnacle at the same time I took out my mortgage.
Why is sufficient savings classed as double my salary? I have enough savings to cover the same as the mortgage PPI would.
Other bills aren't covered under my PPI so how are they relevant?
Can you explain the part about how MPPi doesn't overlap with redundancy for me please.
How much realistically on the above amounts would I get if I made a successful claim?
The way I'm seeing it is if I was made redundant the PPI would pay my monthly mortgage payment for 12 months, a total of around £3500. If I could claim back at least that amount and put it in the bank then should the worst happen I have the same money as the PPI would have paid out to cover my mortgage, if I don't need to use it then I'm £3500 better off, no?

dunstonh

Why is sufficient savings classed as double my salary? I have enough savings to cover the same as the mortgage PPI would.

Because your mortgage is not your only outgoing and if you are out of a job, you do not know when you will get another one. So, savings have to be substantial. Plenty of FOS decisions on this.

here are some snippets from real complaints that the FOS publish.

. Although Mr S had some sick pay and savings, the
MPPI would’ve paid out on top of this. I note his savings equalled about one third of his
income at the time he took out the mortgage – so it’s unlikely his sick pay and savings
would’ve lasted a whole year. And the MPPI would’ve left his sick pay and savings
available for other things. So, given the importance of keeping up with his mortgage
repayments – so as not to risk losing his home – I think the MPPI was suitable for Mr S.
--
Even if Mr G and Miss F were advised, I don’t accept what Mr G and Miss F have said in
their response to my provisional decision. This is because:
- Savings don’t negate the need to protect the ability of the main wage earner, Mr G, to
make the repayments for their main asset and home.

--
I have considered what Mr and Mrs C have said about their level of savings, but this has not
led me to reach a different conclusion. This level of savings does not show that they would
have found the PPI policy of no use to them.
The PPI would have paid out in addition to any work benefits they received and would have
helped preserve their savings. So this does not clearly mean that Mr and Mrs C could not
have chosen to buy PPI.

Other bills aren't covered under my PPI so how are they relevant?

Because your home is your major asset with lifestyle changing consequences if it goes unpaid. You can insure the bulk of your income but if you choose to cover a smaller part then that is your choice.

Can you explain the part about how MPPi doesn't overlap with redundancy for me please.

Redundancy does not prevent a payout on MPPI. So, whether you get £0 or £100,000, it doesnt impact on the MPPI payout at all.

The way I'm seeing it is if I was made redundant the PPI would pay my monthly mortgage payment for 12 months, a total of around £3500. If I could claim back at least that amount and put it in the bank then should the worst happen I have the same money as the PPI would have paid out to cover my mortgage, if I don't need to use it then I'm £3500 better off, no?

That is not how insurance works. You cant pay the premiums for x years and then if no claimable event occurs ask for the money back.

You need to remember that this is MPPI we are talking about. Its not loan or credit card PPI. MPPI is still retailed today. One of two types of PPI that still is. It is considered a more important product cover a major debt.

Jayjay08

The way I'm seeing it is if I was made redundant the PPI would pay my monthly mortgage payment for 12 months, a total of around £3500. If I could claim back at least that amount and put it in the bank then should the worst happen I have the same money as the PPI would have paid out to cover my mortgage, if I don't need to use it then I'm £3500 better off, no?[/QUOTE]


So you don't agree with this part then?

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, much appreciated👍:T

societys_child

You don't just claim it back, it's an insurance policy that has covered you for the past 13 years. I've had buildings and contents, car, and various other policies for many years, that fortunately, I didn't have reason to claim against. I can't claim the premiums back!

As asked in post #2, do you have any valid reasons for complaint?