Nationwide Plevin Failure

Hellsacc

Turned down stating credit agreement does not fall within the s.140a consumer credit act 1974, what does all that mean?
FYI Was a Nationwide Endowment Mortgage which also failed on the PPI claim even after taking to Ombudsman too.

-taff

Endowents didn't have PPI.

Did you make a CCA requuest?

Hellsacc

It did, I had to have it due to it being a 100% endowment. Ombudsman agreed I was not mis-sold this.
I am just querying if the new reason for the Plevin claim being turned down(credit agreement does not fall within the s.140a consumer credit act 1974) is worth taking to Ombudsman or not, as I am not entirely sure what it is all about.

dunstonh

It did,

No it didnt. It was impossible for an endowment policy to have PPI in it.

I had to have it due to it being a 100% endowment.

You are mixing products up.

You had a interest only mortgage. You would have had an an endowment policy. Endomwent policies could not have PPI on them.

I am just querying if the new reason for the Plevin claim being turned down(credit agreement does not fall within the s.140a consumer credit act 1974) is worth taking to Ombudsman or not, as I am not entirely sure what it is all about.

Its an issue to do with PPI. You didnt have PPI (at least not on the endowment). So, it doesnt apply to you.

Hellsacc

(see snippet from ombudsman rejection, this is so you can see they accepted I did have PPI, but was not entitled to compensation. As this took a few years with the ombudsman I am sure they would have thrown it out long before if there was no PPI attached).

What the first paragraph below is on about is that the mortgage would be one which would shortfall and they compensated us for that, which is a totally separate issue, but I thought it might me be a basis also for the PPI to be paid back.

Ombudsman Rejection:-
The evidence indicates that on the 11 October 2006, Guardian wrote to you and informed you that, with regard to your endowment policy, they “believe that this policy was not the most suitable arrangement for your circumstances at the time it was sold.”

This isn’t an indictment on the type of mortgage you were offered and opted for. A mortgage where you pay only the interest whilst concurrently saving by the way of suitable repayment vehicle is a perfectly valid way of securing a mortgage.

In this instance, Guardian appears to have stated its mortgage endowment policy was not suitable. This is solely an opinion expressed with regard to the adequacy of the policy used to repay the mortgage, and not the type of mortgage selected.

Had Nationwide informed you that you had been mis-sold the mortgage, I would agree that you should be compensated for any linked policies such as a payment protection, however, this is not the case, and I apologise for any confusion caused.

So there is PPI attached and I did pay additional premiums on top of the endowment itself.
Does anyone have any answer to my initial post?

societys_child

I would agree that you should be compensated for any linked policies such as a payment protection, however, this is not the case

That doesn't say you had ppi.
They are agreeing that had there been ppi attached, compensation would have been appropriate, but not in your case, because you didn't have ppi.

[Deleted User]

Hellsacc wrote: »

So there is PPI attached and I did pay additional premiums on top of the endowment itself.
Does anyone have any answer to my initial post?

Since there doesn't seem any point commenting about the phantom PPI, I'll just respond to your initial post;

Hellsacc wrote: »

Turned down stating credit agreement does not fall within the s.140a consumer credit act 1974, what does all that mean?

It means you didn't have a valid complaint.

Sorry.

antrobus

Hellsacc wrote: »

Turned down stating credit agreement does not fall within the s.140a consumer credit act 1974, what does all that mean?....

Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/140A

Therefore your credit agreement was not unfair.

Hellsacc wrote: »

...
FYI Was a Nationwide Endowment Mortgage which also failed on the PPI claim even after taking to Ombudsman too.

As others have pointed out, you didn't have PPI.

Hellsacc wrote: »

...

Ombudsman Rejection:-

Had Nationwide informed you that you had been mis-sold the mortgage, I would agree that you should be compensated for any linked policies such as a payment protection, however, this is not the case, and I apologise for any confusion caused.

I.e you weren't mis-sold the mortgage and there was no linked PPI.

Endowment policies frequently included waiver of premium. You may have confused that with PPI. But waiver of premium is not PPI, and Plevin does apply.

dunstonh

(see snippet from ombudsman rejection, this is so you can see they accepted I did have PPI,

Nothing in your post indicates you had PPI. Are you aware that PPI is a particular type of insurance policy? It is not a catchall term covering all types of complaint.

-taff

You had an interest only mortgage where you should have had a separate policy that would [supposedly] make a good return on any savings you put into which would pay off the lump sum required after the interest only mortgage ended.

They are saying that the investment portion of that didn't come up to spec.

They are not saying anything about PPI at all.

They are saying that if they had the said the entire mortgage was missold i.e the interest only mortgage , IF there were any linked policies, they would have told them to refund you, but it wasn't, so there weren't, so you weren't.

Hellsacc

Thanks, I understood that is what it said.