MPPI cover from Nationwide

nice2know

In 1995/1996 my wife and I took out two mortgages with Nationwide. They suggested that we buy MPPI to cover us for unemployment. They were offering two products, either 12 or 24 months cover. They told us they were offering free cover (no premium payments) for the first twelve months.
We accepted their free offer but unfortunately one of us was made redundant within the first 12 months. Our new mortgage documents showed 12 months benefit cover. My unemployment lasted more than 24 months, however, I was only paid benefit for 12 months. I assumed at the time, since it was offered for free, that they could only cover me for the cheaper 12 month product, and so I did not question it. However, in March 2017, amid all the MPPI mis-selling publicity I contacted Nationwide and asked them to prove to me that they were correct in giving me 12 months and not 24 months benefit. Eventually, in September 2017 Nationwide showed us an "Internal Document" stating that either of the MPPI products would be available free of charge for the first 12 months. At this point, I put in a formal complaint to Nationwide that I had not been paid benefit for 24 months. Their final decision stated that they could not address my complaint because the time limits of 6 years since taking out MPPI cover had lapsed and it was more than 3 years since we should have realised their error. We referred the case to the Ombudsman Service who told us that they were not allowed by Nationwide to look at our complaint because the time limits had lapsed. On the basis that all documentation is still available at Nationwide and Martin Lewis' statement that the time limits are irrelevant, we are confused with what we have been told. In any case, we only realised in September 2017 that we should have been covered for 24 months, ie within the three year time limit, at which point we complained immediately. Has this happened to anyone else and if so, we would like to hear other people's experiences.

dunstonh

Eventually, in September 2017 Nationwide showed us an "Internal Document" stating that either of the MPPI products would be available free of charge for the first 12 months.

From memory, I thought you could be on both as an indication of which you wanted but you only got 12 months whilst it was free and then 24 months when you started paying without the need to requalify.

So, you could be on both from the start but the benefit was restricted during the free period.

At this point, I put in a formal complaint to Nationwide that I had not been paid benefit for 24 months. Their final decision stated that they could not address my complaint because the time limits of 6 years since taking out MPPI cover had lapsed and it was more than 3 years since we should have realised their error. We referred the case to the Ombudsman Service who told us that they were not allowed by Nationwide to look at our complaint because the time limits had lapsed.

That sounds correct.

On the basis that all documentation is still available at Nationwide and Martin Lewis' statement that the time limits are irrelevant, we are confused with what we have been told.

Martin Lewis is referring to PPI missale complaints. Yours is not one of those. And actually there already a number of date issues. As always, any Martin Lewis segment or article does come with the caveat that it is a quick summary suited for 2-3 minute slots and not the full range of information.

In any case, we only realised in September 2017 that we should have been covered for 24 months, ie within the three year time limit, at which point we complained immediately. Has this happened to anyone else and if so, we would like to hear other people's experiences.

You had to raise a complaint within 3 years of the claim or 6 years of the sale, whichever longer. Both dates are long gone.

Also, even if they had looked it at, it doesnt mean it was correct. Someone in 2017 wont necessarily know what they offered in 1995 and is just interpreting an old document. Or you are interpreting an old document. It doesnt really matter though as you are timebarred. It is game over if the FOS have agreed the timebar is valid. (and to be fair, it does meet the criteria based on what you have said)

nice2know

There is no evidence provided by Nationwide that the benefit was restricted during the free period. We asked for it repeatedly, but they were unable to provide any evidence. The Internal Document shown to us inadvertently in September 2017 at a meeting proved that they should have given us 24 months of cover during the free period, as this was the only and obvious product to choose, as it was free.

dunstonh

There is no evidence provided by Nationwide that the benefit was restricted during the free period.

And nothing to say it wasnt.

We asked for it repeatedly, but they were unable to provide any evidence.

I'm surprised they had anything. 10 years prior to regulation on a plan not being paid into.

However, whatever your view is, it doesn't matter. Once timebarred and confirmed by the FOS, it wouldnt matter if you had the most nailed on complaint going. The timebar prevents it.

nice2know

The Internal Document shown to us last September made it quite clear that the 24 month benefit product should have applied. We should have been made aware of this document when taking out the Mortgages and MPPI. Having only been made aware of this document last year, that is surely the point when the three year time limit starts, and we submitted a complaint immediately.

It is clear to us that Nationwide have deliberately acted unethically.

We would be interested to hear from others that had a similar experience and what they intend doing.

In any case, is Martin Lewis right in stating that the 6 year and 3 year time limits are not applicable, if all documents are still available, which is the case in this instance.

dunstonh

In any case, is Martin Lewis right in stating that the 6 year and 3 year time limits are not applicable, if all documents are still available, which is the case in this instance.

Really? And where does Martin Lewis say this? And since when has Martin Lewis been the regulator and not the FCA?

nice2know

I quote verbatim from the MSE website:

“There’s NO time limit on how far back you can go to make a PPI claim; the only problem may be the paperwork...”

“If your policy ended over six years ago: The “statute of limitations” means banks don’t need to keep records that are over six years old. However, there is no official cut off time if you’ve still got the paperwork - while your chances of success are a little lower with older loans - many still do successfully reclaim. We’ve had many successes going back to the early 1990s”

You can check this out for yourself on the MSE website.

dunstonh

I quote verbatim from the MSE website:

“There’s NO time limit on how far back you can go to make a PPI claim; the only problem may be the paperwork...”

That is correct. There is no timelimit specific to PPI complaints. The timebar rules are using FCA rules applying to all areas.

“If your policy ended over six years ago: The “statute of limitations” means banks don’t need to keep records that are over six years old. However, there is no official cut off time if you’ve still got the paperwork - while your chances of success are a little lower with older loans - many still do successfully reclaim. We’ve had many successes going back to the early 1990s”

That is actually inaccurate in a few places.
1 - there is no status of limitations for 6 years. It is 15 years and only applies in legal cases. For the regulated complaints process there is no statute of limitations at all.
2 - The 6 year rule of documtation is not a rule. It is a suggestion by the FCA. Some firms may use 6 years. Some may use 10 years or whatever.

You can check this out for yourself on the MSE website.

MSE is well known for abbreviating the rules and requirements to a short summary and not covering all scenarios.

For instance, there is no mention of the 2012 FCA guidance on PPI and the issuing of CCLs to allow firms to bar complaints within three years. See here: https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/finalised-guidance/fg12-17.pdf

it makes no reference of FCA rules DISP 1.8R and 2.8.2R which apply to all areas including PPI.

Martin himself addressed this issue some years back by saying that his articles and segments have to be short and will not cover all scenarios. He didn't want to put people off. The FCA itself now follows a similar method. It's consumer webpage on Plevin outcomes is one page and uses large text. It makes no reference to qualifying rules. The full details are over 100 pages and include the qualifying rules and where firms can reject.

The FCA allows timebarring in their rules (DISP 2.8R). You still have right to refer it to the FOS who will check the timebar is valid (and a few other areas)

(3) in the view of the Ombudsman, the failure to comply with the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R was as a result of exceptional circumstances; or
(4) the Ombudsman is required to do so by the Ombudsman Transitional Order; or
(5) the respondent has consented to the Ombudsman considering the complaint where the time limits in DISP 2.8.2 R or DISP 2.8.7 R have expired (but this does not apply to a “relevant complaint” within the meaning of section 404B(3) of the Act).

The FCA trumps MSE

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

The FCA trumps MSE

Just a bit

nice2know

Thanks for your comprehensive comments Dunstonh.

The question that still remains unanswered for us is why the 3 years time limit does not start from September 2017, when we were shown the “Internal Document” that clearly said that the 24 month benefit product was also available for free. Nationwide were aware of this document right from the start (it was published in 2002), but appear to have deliberately kept it quiet for obvious reasons.

dunstonh

The question that still remains unanswered for us is why the 3 years time limit does not start from September 2017, when we were shown the “Internal Document” that clearly said that the 24 month benefit product was also available for free.

If you are correct, then I do see where you are coming from. However, it is the FOS you need to persuade. Not us. If they won't change their mind then you are not going anywhere.

However, whilst my memory may be wrong (as it was a long time ago) I am sure that the free period was 12 months even if you selected the 24 month product and only moved to 24 months when you started paying. The idea of selecting up front was to allow it to move onto the right product at the end of the free period without the need to requalify for cover. Problem is that what you saw doesnt answer that either way.