We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MPPI from nationwide BS
Options
Meggysmummy1
Posts: 3 Newbie
Looking for some advice. Just received a rejection letter from nationwide re a MPPI policy taken out by my husband in 1997 with Dunfermline BS in which he was told he had to take out otherwise the mortgage would not be approved. It was his first mortgage and was not in any financial state to turn down the loan as his earnings were not substantial.
He never claimed on the insurance and the mortgage was paid off roughly June 2004.
He is now in the position where the bank have said that although they have no paperwork for his PPI policy (although they can tell him how much the monthly payment was!!) they refer to their procedures at that time and said that he would have been given the option. He categorically denies this is the case and remembers being told by “Eileen” (yes, he remembers her name) that it was compulsory. The only reason he had never chased this up is because he assumed that as Dunfermline BS was dead and buried, there was no one to claim. He only recently found out through MSE that it became a trading division of nationwide...
My question is, the complaint has now been referred to the FOS but my husband nor the bank have any proof of this sale/mis sale so how would the FOS conduct their investigation, would they base it on most likely events?
He’s yet to hear from FOS so any advice would be appreciated.
He never claimed on the insurance and the mortgage was paid off roughly June 2004.
He is now in the position where the bank have said that although they have no paperwork for his PPI policy (although they can tell him how much the monthly payment was!!) they refer to their procedures at that time and said that he would have been given the option. He categorically denies this is the case and remembers being told by “Eileen” (yes, he remembers her name) that it was compulsory. The only reason he had never chased this up is because he assumed that as Dunfermline BS was dead and buried, there was no one to claim. He only recently found out through MSE that it became a trading division of nationwide...
My question is, the complaint has now been referred to the FOS but my husband nor the bank have any proof of this sale/mis sale so how would the FOS conduct their investigation, would they base it on most likely events?
He’s yet to hear from FOS so any advice would be appreciated.
0
Comments
-
Sorry meant to add ... re his financial state.. he had been turned down by a few banks because his salary wasn’t enough to qualify for the amount needed for the mortgage. Dunfermline were the only bank who were offering him the £32000 needed so when he was told he had to take out the MPPI, he wasn’t in a position to walk away from the loan0
-
With no evidence of a mis sale, FOS will conclude there was no mis sale.0
-
Yes, but the complaint is utterly weak I'm afraid. FOS will accept the sales scripts from the time as evidence that the (named) individual did not tell your husband that the insurance was not optional. Your evidence, on the other hand, is a "memory" from two decades ago.Meggysmummy1 wrote: »My question is, the complaint has now been referred to the FOS but my husband nor the bank have any proof of this sale/mis sale so how would the FOS conduct their investigation, would they base it on most likely events?
I wouldn't expect FOS to uphold your complaint without any compelling evidence from your side I'm afraid.
All of that is almost entirely irrelevant to your PPI mis-selling complaint.Meggysmummy1 wrote: »Dunfermline were the only bank who were offering him the £32000 needed so when he was told he had to take out the MPPI, he wasn’t in a position to walk away from the loan0 -
Meggysmummy1 wrote: »...
My question is, the complaint has now been referred to the FOS but my husband nor the bank have any proof of this sale/miss sale so how would the FOS conduct their investigation, would they base it on most likely events?
He’s yet to hear from FOS so any advice would be appreciated.
Why? What difference would it make?
In any event "the mortgage was paid off roughly June 2004". The Dunfermline BS went pop in 2009, which is when the Nationwide BS acquired most of the Dunfermline's mortgage book and deposit base.
I'm not convinced that the Nationwide would have any liability for an alleged miss-sale of a MPPI policy linked to a mortgage that was never on their books. But who knows?0 -
Clearly they have taken liability for this one, otherwise they would have rejected the complaint on that basis rather than addressing the Op's specific concerns.
I'm not convinced that the Nationwide would have any liability for an alleged miss-sale of a MPPI policy linked to a mortgage that was never on their books.0 -
I presumed they had taken liability?? And it was a thread from someone on MSE that advised him to write to nationwide to lodge the complaint as they have taken over any communications linked to Dunfermline.0
-
As above. They've answered your specific complaint. They haven't rejected it because they are not liable.Meggysmummy1 wrote: »I presumed they had taken liability??
That does not in any way improve your chances of the Ombudsman overturning your rejection I'm afraid.0 -
That complaint reason rarely wins the complaint as every fraudulent/try-it-on PPI complaint says it and there is rarely any evidence to support it. So, even if it was true, there is nothing to back it up.Just received a rejection letter from nationwide re a MPPI policy taken out by my husband in 1997 with Dunfermline BS in which he was told he had to take out otherwise the mortgage would not be approved.It was his first mortgage and was not in any financial state to turn down the loan as his earnings were not substantial.
That is pretty good justification for having MPPI. So, that actually aids Nationwide.He categorically denies this is the case and remembers being told by “Eileen” (yes, he remembers her name) that it was compulsory.
Give them the proof then.My question is, the complaint has now been referred to the FOS but my husband nor the bank have any proof of this sale/mis sale so how would the FOS conduct their investigation, would they base it on most likely events?
This particular complaint reason will be rejected by the FOS just as the Nationwide have. The FOS will check that Nationwide have completed a full complaint review as they should have and decide if the decision from the Nationwide was correct or not.
The FOS reject the majority of MPPI complaints. So, whilst you could end up in the minority, you should be prepared for rejection.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Moneyineptitude wrote: »Clearly they have taken liability for this one, otherwise they would have rejected the complaint on that basis rather than addressing the Op's specific concerns.
Clearly the Nationwide have all the Dunfermline's records. Without sight of the rejection letter I have no idea what the basis was.
But it wouldn't surprise me if it hadn't occurred to anyone at NBS that they had no liability because they never bought the mortgage. Not everyone is as smart as me.:)0 -
Clearly the Nationwide have all the Dunfermline's records. Without sight of the rejection letter I have no idea what the basis was.
But it wouldn't surprise me if it hadn't occurred to anyone at NBS that they had no liability because they never bought the mortgage. Not everyone is as smart as me.:)
I am so smart
S-M-R-T
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv4eTE0aUiQSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards