Halifax mortgage PPI

scarebear80

We have just put a claim in with Halifax for the TMPP this is for the mortgage repayment cover only. When it was sold to us we were led to believe that without it, it would jeopardise our mortgage application. I can vividly recall the conversation, i even know the ladys name, it was that clear! This was in April 2004...
we tried to make a claim in 2007 for the mortgage cover as i was made redundant but it was rejected on the grounds of your husband earns too much, along those lines. However what we didn't know was that this was a 50/50 split policy. if the claim had of been successful it would only have covered half of the mortgage payment, which was useless! My husband, who is still working for the same company now, had his own benefits at work, which included a 12 month redundancy pay, sick pay etc. this is why we believe it was mis sold.
The halifax has rejected this claim on several reasons. one being that we renewed the mortgage in April 2007 with the halifax and a ruling had been changed about the disclosure of ppi agreements around this time. We kept this product on as we thought again it would jeopardise anything we had in place, naive i know!
Im sorry if this all sounds a touch sketchy, my husband has been dealing with all of this and ive just been trying to research whether we should take it any further or are being told a generic answer on things? would we be entitled to a refund of the policy from 2004-2007 at least?

[Deleted User]

scarebear80 wrote: »

would we be entitled to a refund of the policy from 2004-2007 at least?

No. It's either mis sold or it isn't. Not a little bit mis sold.

If you disagree with their decisions, you can go to FOS.

dunstonh

When it was sold to us we were led to believe that without it, it would jeopardise our mortgage application.

That is a weak complaint reason. Almost certainly unprovable and most complaints of that nature fail on that particular points (but there may be other places where they succeed)

we tried to make a claim in 2007 for the mortgage cover as i was made redundant but it was rejected on the grounds of your husband earns too much, along those lines.

That is not a valid claim rejection reason. These policies are set up individually or jointly. So, if the policy was set up as 50/50, then you would be able to claim 50% of the benefit if you were made redundant. It doesn't matter what your husband was earning. If the joint policy was set up 100/0 then its all about your husband and not you.

. if the claim had of been successful it would only have covered half of the mortgage payment, which was useless!

It wouldn't be useless and could make the difference between keeping the house or losing it.

My husband, who is still working for the same company now, had his own benefits at work, which included a 12 month redundancy pay, sick pay etc. this is why we believe it was mis sold.

Redundancy is not guaranteed. If the company is insolvent then you can get 12 month redundancy. The FOS are repeating complaints regularly where the person has 12 months of sick pay.

this is why we believe it was mis sold.

None of your complaint reasons are strong and would be easily rejected. You may have a case on getting the claim reopened if that was rejected unfairly.

The halifax has rejected this claim on several reasons. one being that we renewed the mortgage in April 2007 with the halifax and a ruling had been changed about the disclosure of ppi agreements around this time.

No ruling changes around that time. Insurance became regulated in Jan 2005. Not sure 2007 is classed around that time. Plevin refunds (excess commission over 50% including profitshare) on PPI sold in conjunction with an agreement under the consumer credit act can apply in 2007 and does in 2008. However, not all mortgages are under the CCA. Many were under MCOB. Plevin doesnt apply to MCOB mortgages.

or are being told a generic answer on things?

The Halifax responses seem correct. Although the sketchy bits leave some questions to be asked.

Remember that most MPPI complaints fail. So, when you made the complaint, you knew that was the likely outcome. Some of your reasons, even if true, are impossible to prove. So, they rarely succeed. A few of your reasons are strong for loan and credit card PPI but not for MPPI.

would we be entitled to a refund of the policy from 2004-2007 at least?

I am not sure why you pick that period but as mentioned above, its either missold or not.

if you disagree with the response you can go to the FOS. However, I wouldn't bank on it being successful. MPPI complaint upholds are around 1 in 4 nowadays. But we have only sketchy info to go on. They will have the whole audit trail available.

AdamJones

If you can vividly recall the information and your allegation is around the optional nature of the policy it may be upheld. However it just depends on how credible your testimony is i.e how much you specifically recall. Furthermore tmp documents do sometimes state the policy is optional so you would get questioned on this and why you didn't read the documents that were posted to you. However Halifax do not rely heavily on these posted documents when assessing the overall complaint. They don't hold as much weight as a credible testimony from yourself. Please also note any evidence at all on their systems such as phone calls during the life of the policy which point to a conversation taking place will be questioned regarding optionality as it may have been discussed during these phone calls. Good luck.

Nasqueron

AdamJones wrote: »

If you can vividly recall the information and your allegation is around the optional nature of the policy it may be upheld. However it just depends on how credible your testimony is i.e how much you specifically recall. Furthermore tmp documents do sometimes state the policy is optional so you would get questioned on this and why you didn't read the documents that were posted to you. However Halifax do not rely heavily on these posted documents when assessing the overall complaint. They don't hold as much weight as a credible testimony from yourself. Please also note any evidence at all on their systems such as phone calls during the life of the policy which point to a conversation taking place will be questioned regarding optionality as it may have been discussed during these phone calls. Good luck.

Regardless of how vivid your memory is, that isn't proof it happened, it's just an anecdotal comment. I could "vividly" remember lending you £100 and by your logic, you'd need to pay me back.



A document that says it's optional and is ticked VASTLY outweighs a memory of an event years ago,you do write some silly stuff mate.

dunstonh

Allegations which are unprovable tend to be rejected unless the bank offers a response which lacks credibility. If there are no other reasons identified to uphold the complaint then it comes down to a balance of probability. The side which is most credible tends to win.

The problem with claiming you have a vivid memory is that you almost certainly do not. Your mind has probably filled gaps and words like could get turned into should. You run the risk of making things up which could be shown to be incorrect you lose credibility.

When I have worked with complaint handling, I have seen people claim all sorts of things were said and done. I have seen them name the person that they saw even though they didn't. I myself was named by someone who had a vivid recollection. Yet at the date the issue took place, I was not employed by that company. What you allege is not taken as gospel. It is taken into consideration but balanced against the evidence that is available from both sides. Sometimes you do have to make a judgement call on a decision. it will go with the most credible party.

Bermonia

I can vividly tell you that your complaint will not be upheld on the basis that it was not made clear that TMPP policy was optional - if your complaint has ANY chance of success it would be for any other potential failing Halifax find i.e. you were not eligible for the policy, or terms were restrictive or onerous given your circumstances.

The biggest struggle you will face with your arguments is that you simply cannot prove it, if is also one of the most common complaint points (and the weakest), plus being a mortgage the records retained by the business will usually be plentiful and will all point towards this being an ‘optional’ product.

AdamJones

There is no tick box or signed application form for a tmp policy. It's verbal confirmation. I meant if you can vividly recall specific details which are then backed up by system evidence you have a credible testimony. These include but will not be limited to branch where the sale took place mortgage details and what was discussed. So when you have an allegation around optionality the bank will find your allegation much stronger as you have already proved you are recalling the correct information and not making things up.

Nasqueron

AdamJones wrote: »

There is no tick box or signed application form for a tmp policy. It's verbal confirmation. I meant if you can vividly recall specific details which are then backed up by system evidence you have a credible testimony. These include but will not be limited to branch where the sale took place mortgage details and what was discussed. So when you have an allegation around optionality the bank will find your allegation much stronger as you have already proved you are recalling the correct information and not making things up.

You can provide all the testimony you like, your memory and what you say has no weight vs facts like a signed contract and paper trail otherwise everyone would win every PPI complaint just by stating their "vivid memory" of the sales process. What you are stating is factually incorrect and should not continue to be repeated

[Deleted User]

AdamJones wrote: »

There is no tick box or signed application form for a tmp policy. It's verbal confirmation

When has any one verbally agreed to an insurance policy on a mortgage without also providing a signature? You appear to be applying what happened with credit card PPI to every other variety.

Thanks for your contribution to the forum "AdamJones", but please don't post advice which you are not absolutely certain of. It's unfair to those seeking advice if you post conflicting (and erroneous) "facts".

Bermonia

Simply remembering that you may have spoken with ‘Janet’ does not then infer that your claims are therefore irrefutable.

PPI complaints are so rarely upheld under the OP’s complaint point - in very rare circumstances there was a genuine issue with paperwork not being clear or require consumer’s to have to ‘opt out’ of insurance certainly won’t be ANY supportin