PPI Reclaims not covered by the FOS

SonOf

So here's the specific question: so far I have found out that when a business has ceased trading, you go to the FSCS and if the business was on the FCA register they will handle the claim. But BreakAway wasn't. However, it *was* regulated by the MCCB (Mortgage Code Compliance Board) and the Office of Fair Trading. Both of those have ceased to exist. I'm trying to find out if there's a body that will take this claim on, in the way the FSCS deals with things that used to be the FCA... if you see what I mean.

The company no longer exists. So, you have no access to the FOS. This only leaves the FSCS. However, the FSCS will only cover post regulation sales. Not pre-regulation.

On the plus side, most MPPI complaints fail and even if the FSCS did consider it, they only uphold around 5% of cases on MPPI. Many of those are single premium MPPI (the bad type) and not regular premium MPPI (the good type).

The paperwork I just found goes into the need for insurance to cover loss of earnings from redundancy, illness etc (quite pushy about the need for it) - ie PPI. One paragraph says that this cover is included in the monthly payments - I *think* that means it was automatically within our payments and wasn't optional. I also think it means we were paying this cover on top of the cover we were told to have by the lender.

The mortgage broker has a duty to make you aware of your financial needs and the consequences. So, some level of "disturbance" is required and sensible.

muddlemand

SonOf wrote: »

The company no longer exists. So, you have no access to the FOS. This only leaves the FSCS. However, the FSCS will only cover post regulation sales. Not pre-regulation.

Thanks SonOf, but I realise the FOS can't help and the FSCS can't either because this regulation wasn't under the FCA. My question is whether there's any equivalent route when the firm was indeed regulated, but not by the FCA. In my case, regulated by both the OFT and the MCCB.

On the plus side, most MPPI complaints fail and even if the FSCS did consider it, they only uphold around 5% of cases on MPPI. Many of those are single premium MPPI (the bad type) and not regular premium MPPI (the good type).

Again, "Yes, but..." ! Looks like we were paying twice for the same cover, having life and critical illness insurance with Zurich but also with BreakAway. I do see that having cover is sensible but not like this.

The mortgage broker has a duty to make you aware of your financial needs and the consequences. So, some level of "disturbance" is required and sensible.

Agreed. I can't judge how fair the scare factor was, but it's sort of a side question. (The document has the word "repossession" in bold, red lettering every time it appears, for example, nothing like that on any other page of the booklet, and no mention of possibly already having the same cover elsewhere. (I haven't found the T&Cs). But you may consider that fair enough. I'm not disputing that cover is sensible.)

It looks likely, as far as I can see, that it was in fact done wrongly at the time, but that I have no comeback - if there is no body handling cases of regulation by the OFT and/or MCCB, then there's nowhere to turn. If that's the case I'm gutted (would have been £14,000-ish) - which is why I'm not giving up until I'm 100% certain there is no possible route to go. Would be awful to give up now, and find out later that I could have done this through XYZ organisation but didn't research hard enough to know about them!

When I phoned the FOS it was hard to get any sense out of the guy, he seemed not to understand what I was asking and kept repeating the same reply which I'd already said I knew. And he seemed to have no interest in understanding what I actually was trying to ask. Kept referring me to the website - which I'd got as much as I could from, before phoning. The FCSC was a bit better but not much. The only friendly phone call was the law firm that handled it, but of course they couldn't help. So I'm reluctant to try again, but if I can't find out otherwise, I'll have to phone after the weekend.

-taff

The FCA replaced the OFT.
The FSA replaced the MCCB

muddlemand

-taff wrote: »

The FCA replaced the OFT.
The FSA replaced the MCCB

Sounds like I've reached the end of the line, then.

So frustrating when the firm WAS regulated! Oh well.

Bermonia

muddlemand wrote: »

Sounds like I've reached the end of the line, then.

So frustrating when the firm WAS regulated! Oh well.

I wouldn’t worry too much about... nothing you’ve said suggest you were mis-sold anyways:D

muddlemand

Not even when we were paying two lots of cover?
And the premium was included automatically in the monthly payment? (Assuming I'm understanding that paragraph right - but pretty sure I am.)

i know it's academic now, just out of interest.

SonOf

muddlemand wrote: »

Not even when we were paying two lots of cover?
And the premium was included automatically in the monthly payment? (Assuming I'm understanding that paragraph right - but pretty sure I am.)

i know it's academic now, just out of interest.

If we are talking life and CIC cover then around 20x salary plus debts is considered suitable for most people (dirty figure but upto that point, you are looking at the ballpark). CIC cover is between 4-10 salary plus debts.

You can meet your financial need in one policy or 100 policies. The number of policies doesn't matter. Its the total sum assureds that do.

muddlemand

SonOf wrote: »

If we are talking life and CIC cover then around 20x salary plus debts is considered suitable for most people (dirty figure but upto that point, you are looking at the ballpark). CIC cover is between 4-10 salary plus debts.

You can meet your financial need in one policy or 100 policies. The number of policies doesn't matter. Its the total sum assureds that do.

Ah, I hadn't thought of it that way. I haven't got the paperwork showing how much BreakAway would have paid out, but those premiums were about twice the Zurich premiums. Zurich would have paid out about 4x my then husband's salary - that was combined life + CIC.

So the only dodgy part is that we also had life cover for me - actually more than my then husband's cover - and I wasn't earning any money at all at the time.

Oh, and the BreakAway insurance was, definitely (I've re-read the small print today), included automatically in our monthly payments - which makes me think we didn't make a choice about having it.


Out of interest: when you say "plus debts", I presume you don't mean the mortgage itself? 20x annual salary plus however many thousands the mortgage was for? That would be a huge amount if one ever claimed.

(Also we could have had my premiums waived when I lost my health a few years later, but fair enough as that was up to us to tell them and we didn't. Ouch. This reading back over old small print isn't much fun!)

muddlemand

dunstonh wrote: »

Correct. FOS can only consider post regulation sales or those made by a seller who was with an earlier body.

This just caught my eye. Do you mean that the FOS *can* consider PPI claims when the adviser was regulated by the OFT?

muddlemand

Nobody grumble at me for clutching at straws, please! I know I am.