Mortgage repayments insurance....

mamabuddah

“Mortgage repayments insurance”....and “Total Mortgage Protection”

These were policies taken from The Halifax when my hubby and I had a joint mortgage which started in 1984, my hubby took out the Halifax “Mortgage Repayments Insurance” (not sure of start date, possibly 1984) which we called upon in late 1998. The insurance company then covered our payments, although from memory, his employer paid 6 months at full pay and 6 at half (can’t remember it was such a long time ago) so the insurance possibly wasn’t needed. (Mis-selling?) Eventually , hubby was retired on ill health although we still had the mortgage and at that stage the insurers cancelled the policy as it wouldn’t pay out again, so I took out the Halifax “Total Mortgage Protection” in 2003 which I made payments on until around 2006 when through an injury at work I was also unable to work and a claim was made on the insurance.

Having read Martin’s latest email re:Plevin and a person who was able to claim mis-selling even though the insurer paid out, it sparked the thought that we had never even assumed these policies may have been mis sold because of commission, or because our employers covered the same benefits...and are they financial products we hadn’t thought about? we knew we had a credit card with PPI which again was no use as hubbys salary wouldn’t stop, we also claimed on an endowment arranged by the Halifax, although because it was a broker who since stopped trading we lost on that,

so I’m wondering, should we pursue these as claims?

societys_child

The insurance company then covered our payments, although from memory, his employer paid 6 months at full pay and 6 at half (can’t remember it was such a long time ago) so the insurance possibly wasn’t needed.

Do you not see any contradictions in that one sentence?

I took out the Halifax “Total Mortgage Protection” in 2003 which I made payments on until around 2006 when through an injury at work I was also unable to work and a claim was made on the insurance

So no failings there.

Plevin is a separate issue to PPI 'mis-selling'

dunstonh

his employer paid 6 months at full pay and 6 at half (can’t remember it was such a long time ago) so the insurance possibly wasn’t needed.

That doesn't make any sense. You claimed on the policy and it paid out. So, it was needed.

Employer sick pay is not an issue with MPPI. FOS have been rejecting complaints with 12 months sick pay when it comes to MPPI.

so I took out the Halifax “Total Mortgage Protection” in 2003 which I made payments on until around 2006 when through an injury at work I was also unable to work and a claim was made on the insurance.

One hopes to never have to claim on insurance. However, it is very pleasing here that you took out insurance and obtained benefit from it when you did suffer claimable events.

Having read Martin’s latest email re:Plevin and a person who was able to claim mis-selling even though the insurer paid out, it sparked the thought that we had never even assumed these policies may have been mis sold because of commission, or because our employers covered the same benefits...and are they financial products we hadn’t thought about?

They were not missold due to commission. That is not what Plevin is about. The TMPP also declared commissions on its product illustration (which is issued twice - once at point of sale and again with the cancellation rights).

or because our employers covered the same benefits..

not a missale reason.

so I’m wondering, should we pursue these as claims?

Making a complaint about policies that paid out when you needed them is allowed. However, thankfully, some common sense applies to people trying that. Firstly, you cannot complain you didnt need them or didnt know about them or you were not eligible or that they were not suitable. The fact they paid out on a claim proves all those points wrong. So, you would need different reasons for your complaint. Secondly, if they decide you do have a valid complaint, they are allowed to deduct the amount paid out from any redress. It is quite common to see banks uphold the complaint for statistics reasons and pay out nothing as the claim exceeded the redress under the complaint. Its really only on short term claims that may have paid out 1 or 2 months where the redress tends to exceed the claims acount.

Your post doesnt appear to give any valid reasons for complaint. Employer sick pay is not an issue with MPPI unless the MPPI would not pay out in addition to it. Your claims prove it was not an issue.

Most MPPI complaints fail and MPPI is still retailed today. One of two types that still is. It is considered a more important insurance to have and suffers fewer issues (unlike loan PPI or credit card PPI).

Finally, you took out insurance just in case. Those just in case events happened and you received money from the policies. I bet you were pleased to receive the money at the time. Now you want to complain about it. Morally, is that the right thing to do?

mamabuddah

Thanks dunstonh, to be honest I’d read Martins most recent email where there was talk of someone having used an insurance product but was still able to claim...your reply makes it easier to understand, so thanks for that.

As regards the ins co paying out, they did because of long term illness, but hubbys employer continued to pay him as well, the ins co payments were not actually paid because of redundancy or losing a job...so in effect I suppose even though they paid, his employer was still paying him.

I agree as well, morally it probably isn’t right and based on how you’ve explained it we won’t be claiming, Now if only the MSE email had been worded differently...lol...