We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
PPI Claim on Mortgage
Sayyfe
Posts: 6 Forumite
I am in the process of putting in a mis-selling claim on my Halifax mortgage PPI policy.
This was taken out in 1993.
At the time, my partner and I were both employed, had substantial savings (6 months pay+), jobs that paid out over a year's worth of full sick pay in the event of illness, and redundancy packages equivalent to a year's salary.
Despite all this, the mortgage advisor (in branch) still pushed for PPI cover, which as a naive 20 something, I felt obliged to take. They didn't tell me it was optional and that I could seek PPI cover elsewhere, and what they didn't explain was that the PPI would only pay out after any employer redundancy/sick pay had been exhausted. This last point, I feel, is a key point that the advisor failed to mention, and constitutes a mis-selling of a policy for an intended purpose that it simply wouldn't have covered.
Are these substantive reasons for making a PPI mis-selling complaint?
If not, can you suggest a better way to phrase the complaint.
This was taken out in 1993.
At the time, my partner and I were both employed, had substantial savings (6 months pay+), jobs that paid out over a year's worth of full sick pay in the event of illness, and redundancy packages equivalent to a year's salary.
Despite all this, the mortgage advisor (in branch) still pushed for PPI cover, which as a naive 20 something, I felt obliged to take. They didn't tell me it was optional and that I could seek PPI cover elsewhere, and what they didn't explain was that the PPI would only pay out after any employer redundancy/sick pay had been exhausted. This last point, I feel, is a key point that the advisor failed to mention, and constitutes a mis-selling of a policy for an intended purpose that it simply wouldn't have covered.
Are these substantive reasons for making a PPI mis-selling complaint?
If not, can you suggest a better way to phrase the complaint.
0
Comments
-
They didn't tell me it was optional and that I could seek PPI cover elsewhere,
They didn't have to tell you it was optional and that you could purchase elsewhere in 1993. The policy would only be mis-sold if you were told that the PPI was compulsory when it actually wasn't.
The key terms of the policy would have been presented to you in writing. The Bank would not have covered these in minute detail during the sale and the terms you are referencing are standard across such policies and are still retailed today on those terms. Are you sure you had to exhaust all your savings prior to the insurance paying out? That does not appear likely..what they didn't explain was that the PPI would only pay out after any employer redundancy/sick pay had been exhausted. This last point, I feel, is a key point that the advisor failed to mention,
Nothing you have said so far indicates a mis-sale took place almost a quarter century ago. Your employee benefits only covered you against sickness and claiming that you had a guaranteed redundancy package is not accurate, they are not guaranteed. Generous sick pay of up to a year is not a valid complaint reason for a mortgage PPI complaint. As to your savings, the whole point of the insurance was so that you didn't have to raid your savings. Do you have documentary proof that you had the amount you claim in 1993?
No. You need a much more compelling complaint.can you suggest a better way to phrase the complaint.
Most mortgage PPI complaints are rejected.0 -
Nothing you have said so far indicates a mis-sale took place almost a quarter century ago. Your employee benefits only covered you against sickness and claiming that you had a guaranteed redundancy package is not accurate, they are not guaranteed. As to your savings, the whole point of the insurance was so that you didn't have to raid your savings. Do you have documentary proof that you had the amount you claim in 1993?
The redundancy package was guaranteed, as laid out in the redundancy policy at the company (Britains largest Blue Chip Pharma). For the savings, it could easily be demonstrated by requesting the savings statements at that time.
They key point I'm making in regard to the savings part is that the insurance policy didn't actually cover us in the event of redundancy/ill health. We were subsequently told by the insurer that they only paid out after any savings and redundancy money had been exhausted, so we would have had to raid all savings and redundancy PRIOR to the policy paying out.
What would you suggest as an alternative way of stating a mis-selling claim?0 -
At the time, my partner and I were both employed, had substantial savings (6 months pay+), jobs that paid out over a year's worth of full sick pay in the event of illness, and redundancy packages equivalent to a year's salary.
12 months sick pay is not an issue with MPPI (it is a good reason with loan and credit card PPI covering short term unsecured debts). The FOS have been rejecting complaints with 12 month sick pay.
Redundancy pay is not guarnateed. Plus, MPPI will pay out in addition to this. So, no issue there.
That confirms it is not guaranteed.The redundancy package was guaranteed, as laid out in the redundancy policy at the company (Britains largest Blue Chip Pharma).They didn't tell me it was optional and that I could seek PPI cover elsewhere,
There has never been any requirement to say you can buy it elsewhere. It may have been compulsory. There were mortgage deals in the early to mid 90s where an insurance purchase was necessary to get the mortgage rate. Yours "may" have been one of those. However, this was 12 years prior to insurance regulation. So, post insurance regulation rules dont matter. The rules at point of sale are applied.and what they didn't explain was that the PPI would only pay out after any employer redundancy/sick pay had been exhausted.
What makes you think that is the case? Most MPPI pays out in addition to sick pay and redundancy. If yours is a rare policy that does not pay out then you have a strong case. However, you should check first before you rely on that as a reason as that is not normally the case.
The only bit of a redundancy that can hold up payment is PILON. However, that is quite normal and acceptable.We were subsequently told by the insurer that they only paid out after any savings and redundancy money had been exhausted
I would still check that as it doesnt sound right.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
I'm afraid it wasn't guaranteed. No redundancy package can be guaranteed.The redundancy package was guaranteed
Although there would certainly have been a qualifying period before the policy started paying out, you certainly would not have been required to exhaust all your redundancy (if any) and savings. If this was indeed the case, which I doubt, you'd have a strong complaint reason there. You should thoroughly check the actual terms of the insurance before you complain of this. though. Are you sure you're not confusing this with Payment In Lieu Of Notice?The key point I'm making in regard to the savings part is that the insurance policy didn't actually cover us in the event of redundancy/ill health. We were subsequently told by the insurer that they only paid out after any savings and redundancy money had been exhausted,
There is no issue with the way in which you are phrasing your "complaint", it's the content of your complaint which appears to have questionable validity.What would you suggest as an alternative way of stating a mis-selling claim?0 -
Thanks for all the responses so far.Although there would certainly have been a qualifying period before the policy started paying out, you certainly would not have been required to exhaust all your redundancy (if any) and savings. If this was indeed the case, which I doubt, you'd have a strong complaint reason there. You should thoroughly check the actual terms of the insurance before you complain of this. though. Are you sure you're not confusing this with Payment In Lieu Of Notice?
The payout terms related to only paying out on the PPI policy 12 months after being made redundant. I know a couple of replies above have stated that redundancy payments are not guaranteed, but redundancy terms are quite clearly laid out in my employer's company redundancy policy as "x weeks pay per x years of service". In my 27 years working there, this has never changed, and anyone that has been made redundant has been paid as per the company policy. So I would argue that (certainly in my case) it is guaranteed; I've never seen any evidence otherwise?0 -
The payout terms related to only paying out on the PPI policy 12 months after being made redundant.
PPI doesnt pay after 12 months. It pays out for 12 months following a qualifying period (which can be back to day 1). That qualifying period can vary between 30 or 60 days. There is no PPI plan with a qualifying period of 12 months. There are PHI plans with 12 month qualifying periods but they do not cover redundancy and pay out until retirement age. Very different beasts which are designed to tie in with employer benefits rather than overlap.I know a couple of replies above have stated that redundancy payments are not guaranteed, but redundancy terms are quite clearly laid out in my employer's company redundancy policy as "x weeks pay per x years of service". In my 27 years working there, this has never changed, and anyone that has been made redundant has been paid as per the company policy. So I would argue that (certainly in my case) it is guaranteed; I've never seen any evidence otherwise?
Its not guaranteed. Plenty of people have similar contractual redundancy agreements. However, that is only on the basis of the company remaining solvent. If the company is insolvent then you dont get it. For it to be guaranteed, you would have to work for the civil service, police etc.
I have life assurance. I have never died in my 45 years. So, does that make it missold as I am never going to die?
Woolworths traded for 100 years. On failure, it did not have to pay contractual redundancy. Timescale of insurable events doesn't change whether something is possible or not.
WolI am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
I'm afraid that whatever has happened in the last 27 years is irrelevant. You couldn't know in advance in 1993 whether your company would continue to offer redundancy on those terms (or at all).redundancy terms are quite clearly laid out in my employer's company redundancy policy as "x weeks pay per x years of service". In my 27 years working there, this has never changed, and anyone that has been made redundant has been paid as per the company policy. So I would argue that (certainly in my case) it is guaranteed
So it was NOT guaranteed.
Remember, you are complaining about the actual sale of the PPI which took place 24 years ago. With hindsight you could say that your company would have paid you redundancy, but in 1993 you had no way of being certain of this.
Not a valid complaint reason.
Again, are you sure the PPI policy would only pay out after 12 months? Earlier, you said it would only pay out once you exhausted your savings...0 -
It does sound more and more as if the OP is referring to Permanent Health Insurance which is NOT PPI, of course.There are PHI plans with 12 month qualifying periods but they do not cover redundancy and pay out until retirement age. Very different beasts which are designed to tie in with employer benefits rather than overlap.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards