Histroric Insurance with Mortgage

Cotta

dunstonh wrote: »

I would refer it to the FOS. Mainly as your complaint was not satisfied and they have given you an awful runaround.

I am going to but the senior Mortgage complaint person within the Bank of Ireland was adamant that 13 months delay was fully compensated by £75 and was not prepared to discuss the topic anymore. It started to form doubts in my mind but surely nobody should wait 13 months for a response and the bank were unprepared to advise how they came to the figure of £75.

Outsider_83

dunstonh wrote: »

I would refer it to the FOS. Mainly as your complaint was not satisfied and they have given you an awful runaround.

Seriously what good will this do? FOS will only rule that £75 is fair and that the OP took too long to refer this case to them, beside they lost the original case in relation to the mis-selling of the insurance.

dunstonh

Outsider_83 wrote: »

Seriously what good will this do? FOS will only rule that £75 is fair and that the OP took too long to refer this case to them, beside they lost the original case in relation to the mis-selling of the insurance.

I'm not one for making frivolous complaints. However, just because the bank said £75 is all they want to give, doesnt mean that is all that the FOS will decide.

The decision was only just given. There is 6 months from that date to go to the FOS.

Outsider_83

dunstonh wrote: »

I'm not one for making frivolous complaints. However, just because the bank said £75 is all they want to give, doesnt mean that is all that the FOS will decide.

The decision was only just given. There is 6 months from that date to go to the FOS.

I respect your opinion and you are likely to be better informed than me. However in this instance there is little more than £75 the op can expect and if they can't prove the insurance was mis-sold it game over. At best I can seen the £75 going to £100 but I remain to be convinced on anything more.

Cotta

After a pretty tense discussion with the Ombudsman it appears that I don't have a case.

1. Mis-selling of the insurance, there is enough reasonable doubt to side with the bank.

2. Delay in responding, the Ombudsman would not be seeking anything and £75 was "extremely generous".

Outsider_83

Cotta wrote: »

After a pretty tense discussion with the Ombudsman it appears that I don't have a case.

1. Mis-selling of the insurance, there is enough reasonable doubt to side with the bank.

2. Delay in responding, the Ombudsman would not be seeking anything and £75 was "extremely generous".

Unfortunately I did tell you so, the bank were never going to get his wrong as it's such a high profile issue.

As for the £75, I felt this was too high so at least you got something from the process - success I would say.

Cotta

I actually still logged the case for official investigation.

Outsider_83

Cotta wrote: »

I actually still logged the case for official investigation.

Very foolish, you've lost already.

Cotta

Outsider_83 wrote: »

Very foolish, you've lost already.

It appears that you were right, although I have not got an official response from the Ombudsman yet as his office is still investigating. Further communication from the bank has confirmed that as I took out the insurance out between 2010 and 2013 it has now passed the 6 year term and therefore I cannot query it any further.

Cotta

Official Response from Ombudsman.

1. Insurance was sold 6 years and 5 months ago, there is nothing that can be done about the sale.

2. Nothing can be done in relation to the bank taking one year to respond to my complaint due to point 1.

Absolutely deflated.