Have I been missold ?

patsy2090

Several years ago I took out a mortgage through my husbands work as one of the perks was a mortgage subsidy. However you had to take it with his company. We filled in all the paperwork ourselves as best we could and sent it off. A day or so before it was due to start someone called to apologise that they had missed out paperwork and could we fill immediately. This was an execution only form which meant that as my husband was a member of staff he did not get any financial advice. I was told to put this on the form but I said no as we were not offered advice and was told to put this if I felt strongly but it was a perk being a member of staff you only had minimal paperwork to do. My husband worked in accounts and knew nothing about life assurance.

We completed as requested. I had ticked I wanted critical protection on advice of a friend, we were moving at time and policy sent to old address in error even though previous correspondance was sent to our new address. Sadly I took ill and when I tried to claim on critical I was told I didn't have it I asked for form and sure enough I had ticked for it with a capital and interest mortgage. However they put the whole policy through wrong and in fact put in whole of life plan. Long story short they blamed us for not checking policy which we never received and it was sent direct to bank.

I took to ombudsman who actually told me he had worked with the girl and she was normally thorough. I gave up as too ill to deal and they found in favour of company.

Long and short of it is we gave up but still something that bothers us we were so naive at the time and company were only interested in protecting themselves.

Sorry for all the information but my question is do you think this would be a case for missold as we were not given advice and were forced to take their insurance in order to qualify for mortgage subsidy, which was removed as a perk a few years later. At the time this was the case for most life assurance companies they don't do it now.

sevenhills

patsy2090 wrote: »

We completed as requested. I had ticked I wanted critical protection on advice of a friend, we were moving at time and policy sent to old address in error even though previous correspondance was sent to our new address. Sadly I took ill and when I tried to claim on critical I was told I didn't have it I asked for form and sure enough I had ticked for it with a capital and interest mortgage.

How long ago did you take out this mortgage? How much did this extra cover cost, did you notice that you had not paid it?

Thrugelmir

patsy2090 wrote: »

Sorry for all the information but my question is do you think this would be a case for missold as we were not given advice and were forced to take their insurance in order to qualify for mortgage subsidy, which was removed as a perk a few years later.

You did not receive advice as the employer did not offer it. Yet there was nothing to stop you seeking advice elsewhere. As a perk the employer could impose any condition it wished at the time. Again your choice to accept this condition or seek a mortgage elsewhere. Policy changes at a later date have no bearing.

patsy2090

20 years ago, we have always paid the policy. I did seek advice from another company and this is why I opted for critical protection, however they keyed policy in completely wrong and I did not find out until I tried to claim 13 years later on the critical illness. I think the reason I was asking question was that because of ppi claims where you were made take a policy with the company this is now being classed as missold I was wondering if this would be similar.

Thank you for replying

patsy2090

Thank you for replying

xyz123

What was the payment agreed for this illness cover or total cover. Have you compared that to what u actually paid.

dunstonh

This was an execution only form which meant that as my husband was a member of staff he did not get any financial advice.

That confirms no advice was given or requested.

My husband worked in accounts and knew nothing about life assurance.

He was free to seek advice. They were not stopping that. They were just saying that he was getting no advice and they were pricing their products on a non-advice basis.

We completed as requested. I had ticked I wanted critical protection on advice of a friend, we were moving at time and policy sent to old address in error even though previous correspondance was sent to our new address. Sadly I took ill and when I tried to claim on critical I was told I didn't have it I asked for form and sure enough I had ticked for it with a capital and interest mortgage. However they put the whole policy through wrong and in fact put in whole of life plan. Long story short they blamed us for not checking policy which we never received and it was sent direct to bank.

Some things mixed up there. The mortgage type and method has nothing to do with the life assurance. The life assurance should match what you applied for. Even on an execution only basis. If they had put it through wrong then they would still be liable for that. The fact, after complaint and referral to the FOS, both decided there was no wrongdoing, suggests they did not do it wrong. I suspect you filled out the wrong form and got the product related to that form.

Long and short of it is we gave up but still something that bothers us we were so naive at the time and company were only interested in protecting themselves.

Yes they were interested in protecting themselves. Just as any sensible business should be. The last thing they want is for someone to put in an opportunistic complaint 20 years later in an attempt to get compensation from them.

I think the reason I was asking question was that because of ppi claims where you were made take a policy with the company this is now being classed as missold I was wondering if this would be similar.

Not even close to being similar. Your scenario is very different and the product is very different.

do you think this would be a case for missold as we were not given advice and were forced to take their insurance in order to qualify for mortgage subsidy, which was removed as a perk a few years later. At the time this was the case for most life assurance companies they don't do it now.

No, you have no case for multiple reasons.

1 - you already complained and were rejected by the firm and by the FOS. You don't get a second bite of the cherry
2 - You have confirmed it was execution only
3 - banks were allowed to insist on life assurance. Sometimes they still do (mainly on commercial borrowing). The rules on being forced to have life assurance were not removed. The change was that they could not force their own product. Even if the rules had changed, what matters are the rules at the point of sale. Not decades later.