Rejected PPI Claim

AmandaBrighton

Hi All, I had a PPI Claim rejected back in November 2015 by Santander for an old Abbey National Mortgage Protection Policy. Essentially they said they couldn't find the records (the mortgage was 1998 to 1995). The records I had at the time did not satisfy them that it was real (just an account number) so I dropped it and forgot all about it. I've now discovered all the documentation from that time including bank statements showing how much was going out (loads!). Do you think I should re-open this case or just start a new one? I suspect all roads will lead to the same place and that is, "does the documentation stand up?". I never went to the Ombudsman or anything, so really this is just Santander saying "not enough info" from 4 years ago . Thanks for your help, Amanda

SonOf

I've now discovered all the documentation from that time including bank statements showing how much was going out (loads!).

Is that showing the mortgage or is it showing the monthly payment to the MPPI? (or is it a life assurance or other insurance - some people mistakenly think they are PPI)

MPPI premiums are not normally "loads".

Do you think I should re-open this case or just start a new one?

You can provide the information to Santander and ask them to look again. However, if your information in only about the mortgage, then its unlikely to be enough. All that shows is that you had a mortgage. If there are no direct debits going to the MPPI insurer then it doesnt show that you had MPPI.

AmandaBrighton

Thanks, the mortgage was sold with a PPI policy via General Accident. It was purely PPI, it wasn't a life or any other sort of general insurance. In fact, although I can't prove it, it was sold as a condition of the mortgage for sure - they wouldn't sell me the mortgage unless I took out the PPI. When I say "loads", back in 1990 it was going out at £50/month and the overall timescale of the product was about 7 years. I have found documentation linking the mortgage to the General Accident Policy - it was called a Paymentcare policy. Amanda

The_squirrell

If it was a condition of the mortgage, then there will be no valid claim. You could have chosen another mortgage where it was not required, or are you saying something different?

societys_child

although I can't prove it, it was sold as a condition of the mortgage for sure - they wouldn't sell me the mortgage unless I took out the PPI.

If it was indeed a condition of them offering you a mortgage, then it can't have been mis-sold.

SonOf

In fact, although I can't prove it, it was sold as a condition of the mortgage for sure - they wouldn't sell me the mortgage unless I took out the PPI.

There were deals in the mid 90s that did require the purchase of an MPPI policy to get a particular rate. If yours was one of those then it cannot be missold as it was a requirement.

If yours is not one of those, then the problem with that complaint is that even if you were lied to, there is unlikely to be any evidence to support the complaint. So, the complaint would fall back to suitability and financial need. And this is where most MPPI complaints fail.

However, as you have got evidence of payment of an MPPI, you do have new evidence. So, that bit is good. The bad bit will be if that policy is still not able to be located (which is a possibility). A direct debit payment to General Accident doesnt mean it was a Abbey national product. So, its a start, but it may not be enough. But you wont know until you try.

AmandaBrighton

Thanks for the info. I especially hadn't thought about the "sold as a condition of the mortgage" bit as effectively excluding myself. I might as well start a claim from scratch and see where it goes; it certainly can't hurt!

System

There were deals in the mid 90s that did require the purchase of an MPPI policy to get a particular rate. If yours was one of those then it cannot be missold as it was a requiremen

This is confusing me. the MSE artical says that being told you had to have ppi is mis-selling

societys_child

Dinard wrote: »

This is confusing me. the MSE artical says that being told you had to have ppi is mis-selling

Then the article is wrong. Lenders can apply conditions, it's their money after all.
If you don't like the conditions, you'd be free to go elsewhere.

LABMAN

Dinard wrote: »

This is confusing me. the MSE a/rtical says that being told you had to have ppi is mis-selling

This is what is wrong with this website!


Despite all Martim Lewis's protestions he is selling himself, ie a walkng living advert in everything he does.


Resolver sells your details on for money. You don't get paid but ML certainly does and very handsomely.


Check out how many holidays he takes to be a 'husband' and a 'daddy'?

SonOf

Dinard wrote: »

This is confusing me. the MSE artical says that being told you had to have ppi is mis-selling

Being told you had to have it when it wasn't the case is a lie and therefore a missale. Being told you had to have it when it was a condition is not a missale.

Remember, articles on this site and the TV comments are very short and simplified. They cannot cover every scenario.