MPPI cover from Nationwide

nice2know

Thanks Dunstonh, we are pleased that you can now see our point. We agree that the FOS will need to be persuaded now.

With regards to your second paragraph, here are some points to note:

If we assume that during the free period only the 12 month cover was on offer, even if you chose 24 months benefit cover, then Nationwide had an obligation to make all their customers aware of this, to enable them to look for a different provider, if they wanted 24 months cover at the outset. Otherwise, this would be misleading and could penalise some people (eg. Older people like us, in our 50s) who can find it extremely difficult to find another job quickly. Everything should have been upfront, rather than penalising someone, if they made a claim within the first year - this is unethical.

Since we were not informed that such a restriction existed, the only conclusion that one can draw from this, is that Nationwide were acting fraudulently, hoping to get away with it.

However, the “Internal Document” that they showed us by mistake in September 2017 clearly instructed their sales team that the 24 months benefit cover product was also on offer for free in the first year. This would therefore have made the 12 months product obsolete in the first year, if the customer was informed when purchasing MPPI (who would choose the shorter period of cover, if both were available free of charge?). Keeping this document secret was indeed a clever way to deceive their customers. Nationwide have continuously refused to release this “Internal Document” to the Ombudsman! In any case, if this document supported their case, we believe that they would have released it without hesitation.

On the basis of this “Internal Document”, all mortgage contracts with MPPI cover, should have shown automatically 24 months benefit cover in the first year. After this first year, it would then be up to each individual to decide whether, they wish to continue with 24 months cover, or 12 months, or indeed no cover at all, depending on their circumstances.

dunstonh

On the basis of this “Internal Document”, all mortgage contracts with MPPI cover, should have shown automatically 24 months benefit cover in the first year. After this first year, it would then be up to each individual to decide whether, they wish to continue with 24 months cover, or 12 months, or indeed no cover at all, depending on their circumstances.

Not if it held you to the 24 month version at the end of the free period. Switching to the 12 mth version would be a new product and a new qualifying period (typically 6 months).

Free benefits are often restricted over the paid for benefits. With life assurance, for example, the free period is only accidental death. Not medical related death.

the problem with all these scenarios is that they are based on snippets of info which may or may not be correct with no evidence of anything. None of it adds up to enough to get the FOS to change its position.

[Deleted User]

nice2know wrote: »

Everything should have been upfront, rather than penalising someone, if they made a claim within the first year - this is unethical.

That's not a valid reason for complaining of mis-sale. Their "ethics" are not in question, you need to concentrate on whether you were properly informed of what you were buying.

nice2know wrote: »

If we assume..

Never assume.

nice2know wrote: »

Since we were not informed that such a restriction existed, the only conclusion that one can draw from this, is that Nationwide were acting fraudulently, hoping to get away with it.

Not seeing any "fraud" here I'm afraid.

nice2know wrote: »

the “Internal Document” that they showed us by mistake in September 2017 clearly instructed their sales team that the 24 months benefit cover product was also on offer for free in the first year.

Since you have no copy of this alleged document you are relying on your accusation that you were shown this by "accident", but I can't see you having any traction if you have no documentary evidence. .

nice2know wrote: »

Nationwide have continuously refused to release this “Internal Document” to the Ombudsman!

On what basis have they "refused"? Do they agree the document even exists?

nice2know wrote: »

On the basis of this “Internal Document”, all mortgage contracts with MPPI cover, should have shown automatically 24 months benefit cover in the first year. After this first year, it would then be up to each individual to decide whether, they wish to continue with 24 months cover, or 12 months, or indeed no cover at all, depending on their circumstances.

I think you are pinning an awful lot of hope on a document that you cannot produce. You are therefore wide open to being told that you misinterpreted said document or, worse, that the document does not even exist.

So you are now left fighting for the time bar to be lifted, but even if it were, your actual mis-selling complaint is less than compelling I'm afraid. Accusing them simply of lacking "ethics" and acting "fraudulently" is hardly a surefire way of obtaining a refund.

You certainly face an uphill battle with this..