Mis-Sold PPI Claim - Cardif Pinnacle

tuckervennie

Hi there,
I have just had a rejection letter from Cardif Pinnacle about my ASU PPI claim, rejecting on a number of bases;
1) The cover started in 2006 and so the 6 years policy applies (thought that was 6 years after it ended/)
2) They are claiming I would have known it wasn't the right cover, as they have been sending policy summaries since 2012 with my annual statement
3) They said I applied online separately from my mortgage sale - this is true, but I had been with Cardif prior to me and my ex splitting up on a joint mortgage and so i just went back to them as a matter of course, as I believed i needed the cover which was sold to me originally back in 1995.

My case is that I have been applying for critical illness cover recently and my independent advisor asked for all my paperwork for existing policies (this is still ongoing, until i cancel). I showed him the documentation and he said 'why have you got this? You don't need it'. His point being I had sick pay in full with my employer and if I was made redundant I had been there long enough to receive a decent pay out to keep me going.

Have I enough to take it to the Financial Ombudsman?

Thank you

Nasqueron

tuckervennie wrote: »

Hi there,
I have just had a rejection letter from Cardif Pinnacle about my ASU PPI claim, rejecting on a number of bases;
1) The cover started in 2006 and so the 6 years policy applies (thought that was 6 years after it ended/)
2) They are claiming I would have known it wasn't the right cover, as they have been sending policy summaries since 2012 with my annual statement
3) They said I applied online separately from my mortgage sale - this is true, but I had been with Cardif prior to me and my ex splitting up on a joint mortgage and so i just went back to them as a matter of course, as I believed i needed the cover which was sold to me originally back in 1995.

My case is that I have been applying for critical illness cover recently and my independent advisor asked for all my paperwork for existing policies (this is still ongoing, until i cancel). I showed him the documentation and he said 'why have you got this? You don't need it'. His point being I had sick pay in full with my employer and if I was made redundant I had been there long enough to receive a decent pay out to keep me going.

Have I enough to take it to the Financial Ombudsman?

Thank you

You can take it to the FOS regardless of case merit but nothing you stated indicates miss-sale

1) 6 year rule = 6 years from taking out the product and if you are also time barred under the 3 year rule (3 years from knowing you had reason to complain) then FOS can't do anything anyway
2) This will invoke the 3 year rule as well and you could have complained then
3) This will be the killer if the time bar somehow doesn't apply - if you applied online then you miss-bought rather than being miss-sold as no-one sold you anything. If you chose to take out the product on your own back then there was no sale

Sick pay from an employee even good policies like NHS 6 months full/6 months half gets rejected by the ombudsman as a mortgage is a very long term debt, if the policy paid out on top of the sick pay or kicked in when your work one ran out it would be fine. If you were off sick for say 18 months how would you cope?

Redundancy is not guaranteed e.g. if the firm goes under and it's only 1 week pay per year of employment capped, it's very unlikely you'd have enough to keep you going and pay all your bills

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you chose to take out the product on your own back then there was no sale

You mean no mis-sale of course.

The OP claims he thought he had to take the insurance, but that is not a mis-sale if he then chose to take out the policy voluntarily online and at a later date.

tuckervennie

Thank you for your response on this. It is appreciated.

Would the fact that I had been with Cardif, when it was sold to me with my original mortgage not count for anything? This is the reason I went with them online when I changed my mortgage to a single application.

I don't believe I am barred under the 3 year rule as it literally was only brought to my attention in the last few weeks by the advisor. Is the fact I didn't read all the small print they send enough for them to claim I should have been aware?

Kind regards

dunstonh

1) The cover started in 2006 and so the 6 years policy applies (thought that was 6 years after it ended/)

There is only one 6 year rule and it has to work in conjunction with the 3 year rule. Both must apply to allow it to be used. It is 6 years from the purchase.

2) They are claiming I would have known it wasn't the right cover, as they have been sending policy summaries since 2012 with my annual statement

Now this could be used to cover the three year rule.

3) They said I applied online separately from my mortgage sale - this is true, but I had been with Cardif prior to me and my ex splitting up on a joint mortgage and so i just went back to them as a matter of course, as I believed i needed the cover which was sold to me originally back in 1995.

They appear to be saying that you chose to have it when you bought from them and they are not responsible for the earlier sale.

Have I enough to take it to the Financial Ombudsman?

Your complaint hasnt been looked at as they are timebarring it. So, the FOS is your only option. The FOS wont be able to look at it either unless they decide the timebar is unfair.

I don't believe I am barred under the 3 year rule as it literally was only brought to my attention in the last few weeks by the advisor. Is the fact I didn't read all the small print they send enough for them to claim I should have been aware?

It is hard to say. I havent seen a PPI complaint use policy document summaries as a reason on the 3 year rule. However, we know that policy document summaries have been used as a reason to timebar on packaged bank accounts and the FOS has accepted those as a valid for starting the three year clock.

The fact you dont read what was sent to you is not their fault. It wouldnt have been in the small print either.

My case is that I have been applying for critical illness cover recently and my independent advisor asked for all my paperwork for existing policies (this is still ongoing, until i cancel). I showed him the documentation and he said 'why have you got this? You don't need it'. His point being I had sick pay in full with my employer and if I was made redundant I had been there long enough to receive a decent pay out to keep me going.

He is right and wrong.

Firstly on redundancy, if the company goes into administration then you only get statutory. Not what your contract says. So, its not guaranteed you will get this money. Plus, redundancy pay does not prevent PPi from paying out. So, that is not a blocker for payment.

For sick pay, what is your definition of "full". The FOS have been rejecting 12 months sick pay as a complaint reason with MPPI (although not with loan and credit card PPI). As long as the PPI would pay out in addition to sick pay (which most MPPI does) then its not a strong reason and rejection on that point would be expected.

You don't have a strong financial need for it but there is a small financial need and it would have paid out. So, it doesnt look missold.

Would the fact that I had been with Cardif, when it was sold to me with my original mortgage not count for anything? This is the reason I went with them online when I changed my mortgage to a single application.

No.the original seller sold the first policy. You bought the second policy from a different seller.

[Deleted User]

tuckervennie wrote: »

Would the fact that I had been with Cardif, when it was sold to me with my original mortgage not count for anything?

Nothing you have said indicates any mis-sale took place. The fact that you stayed loyal to the financial institution is irrelevant, I'm afraid.

tuckervennie wrote: »

Is the fact I didn't read all the small print they send enough for them to claim I should have been aware?

They can't force you to read letters they have sent you, but if you didn't then it's you alone who is responsible for any consequences.

So you can indeed refer your case to the Ombudsman, but (based solely on what you have said) expect nothing and you won't be disappointed. Sorry.

Nasqueron

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

You mean no mis-sale of course.

The OP claims he thought he had to take the insurance, but that is not a mis-sale if he then chose to take out the policy voluntarily online and at a later date.

No I don't, of course

I meant no sale as in he bought something rather being sold something

Nasqueron

tuckervennie wrote: »

I don't believe I am barred under the 3 year rule as it literally was only brought to my attention in the last few weeks by the advisor.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way, you can't just pick a date and say that was when you were aware as firms would never be able to time bar due to customers denying they knew there was a problem until the complaint date. As soon as the provider sends you something sufficient to trigger the countdown clock such as a statement about what a packaged bank account gets you for your money or an invitation to complain about PPI then that is the 3 year clock. If the firm is defending under 3 year rule as well on the basis they sent you details of the package (particularly if they mentioned the option to complain if unhappy) then it's by the book

[Deleted User]

Nasqueron wrote: »

No I don't, of course

I meant no sale as in he bought something rather being sold something

Since it's still a "sale" even if he bought it, this is needlessly confusing for the OP. This forum often makes a point of correcting those who refer to complaints as "claims". We should ourselves be careful,therefore, that we don't make similarly bewildering posts.

tuckervennie

Thank you everyone for your valuable input.

It doesn't look like I have a leg to stand on from your responses, so probably have to drop it now.

Seems it was my own fault for not understanding what I was already covered for compared to what I was originally led to believe when I first took out my mortgage.

Just seems I have paid an unnecessary £5K over the period since I changed the type of mortgage in 200.

Many thanks

[Deleted User]

tuckervennie wrote: »

Just seems I have paid an unnecessary £5K over the period since I changed the type of mortgage in 200.

Was that 200 AD or BC?

Didn't know you could get a mortgage over that long a period any more.