Santander (was N&P then Abbey) Mortgage Help?

597money

I have finally found paper work for my old mortgage from the last century that had an PPI element (or as they called it PAS Personal Accident Sickness) - it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.

I have my Mortgage Account Number together with a yearly statement showing that PAS was being paid.

I do not have specific information on the exact start and end dates of the mortgage and I do not have specific account number for the insurance as it was part of the mortgage.

What is the best way to make a claim? I have got confused by the templates as they are asking for things that I do not have, or can't be exact and/or not applicable to me and the Resolver online option seem a bit dodgy?

Should I be using Resolver to make my claim (they direct it to the correct company) or should I be phoning Santander direct or writing them a letter?

Thanks

[Deleted User]

597money wrote: »

it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.

That means it wasn't mis sold, so no need for either claim (unless you have suffered a claimable event and the policy is still live) or complaint.

dunstonh

it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.

Well done on finding that. If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold. There were quite a lot of deals in the 90s which required an insurance cross subsidy purchase. so, maybe it was one of those.

What is the best way to make a claim?

What is your reason for complaint? As it was a condition of borrowing, your reasons for complaint are going to be limited.

597money

Can you clarify for me why I do not meet the very first condition then? Thanks for continued help.


A. Were you told it was compulsory?

It's a common complaint that consumers are told they must buy a policy from the same provider as the loan to be accepted for the product. This is mis-selling.

[Deleted User]

That applies when you were told it was compulsory, but it wasn't in reality.

597money

I remember the day well. This PAS payment was queried when we first got the statement all them decades ago. We were told we had to have it together with their home insurance. It was just there whether it was applicable for us or not. This is very confusing?

dunstonh

If you were told it was compulsory and lied to (i.e. it wasnt) then that is a missale reason. When it is compulsory then it is not a missale.

This is very confusing?

No its not. If it was compulsory then you had to have it. No missale.

FOS decision on a similar complaint:
http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=54228

597money

Thanks much clearer.

H&C

"If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold"...this is not so, the FCA Principles always apply, as does ICOBS (or ICOB), depending on when the sale of the PPI policy was sold.

PRIN 2.1.1 (Principle 7) states that "A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading"

ICOBS 6.1.5 states that "A firm must take reasonable steps to ensure a customer is given appropriate information about a policy in good time and in a comprehensible form so that the customer can make an informed decision about the arrangements proposed".

Because the policy "was a condition of borrowing", does not mean that the sale cannot have been missold. Far from it, not informing customers of the exclusions in the policy etc. was probably the main reason why PPI policies were missold. In many cases customers just never understood what they were paying for. Very few (if anyone) would have asked for PPI to be added to their loan/credit, therefore the policy must have been advised (i.e. not an “execution-only” sale). A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.

dunstonh

Yes, the insurance still has to be suitable but we are talking about an MPPI policy here. Not a loan or credit card PPI.

Far from it, not informing customers of the exclusions in the policy etc. was probably the main reason why PPI policies were missold.

Yet most MPPi complaints are rejected.

A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.

Proving that is easier said than done. If it was a loan PPI we were talking about, then it would be far easier. However, we are talking about one of the good types of PPI. So, fewer issues.

-taff

H&C wrote: »

A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.

Or they forget.