Mis-sold mortgage protection 26 February 2020 at 4:09PM in Reclaim PPI & other insurance 3 replies 143 views

sharonphillips

In 2004 we took out a 15 year mortgage with Abbey National. They advised that we needed a mortgage protection policy which we arranged with Abbey Life. During the course of the mortgage, on three occasions we converted the mortgage to take advantage of better interest rates with Abbey and each time we continued with the policy. We paid off our mortgage in 2015. In September 2019 I read an article entitled ‘The myth that is costing homeowners thousands of pounds’ and what this article said was that life insurance and mortgage protection policies are not compulsory. I wrote to Santander (formerly Abbey) to complain that when we took out the initial mortgage, we did not need the mortgage protection policy as we had means to pay off the mortgage in the event of the death of either of us, but Santander are saying that our claim is time barred and we had sufficient time to complain within the relevant timescale. We did not complain throughout the term of the mortgage because Abbey said we needed the policy so we went along with their advice so would not know at that time that there was anything to complain about. The rules state that a claim must be brought within 6 years of the event occurring or three years when you could reasonably be expected to have found out about a complaint. As the article was written in June 2019, and Abbey National did not say that the policy was not compulsory, am i still time barred from making a claim. I must point out that I am not making a claim under the Plevin Rules, my complaint is that we did not need the policy in the first instance.

SonOf

They advised that we needed a mortgage protection policy which we arranged with Abbey Life. 
Abbey National never had any link up with Abbey Life.   

In September 2019 I read an article entitled ‘The myth that is costing homeowners thousands of pounds’ and what this article said was that life insurance and mortgage protection policies are not compulsory.
Most lenders stopped requiring life assurance in the late 90s.  Although some went into the early 2000s.  However, most people still do it because it is a common sense thing to do.

but Santander are saying that our claim is time barred and we had sufficient time to complain within the relevant timescale.
Strange they are taking any responsibility for Abbey Life policies when Abbey Life has nothing do with them. Perhaps you have the wrong insurer?

 We did not complain throughout the term of the mortgage because Abbey said we needed the policy so we went along with their advice so would not know at that time that there was anything to complain about. 
Realistically, that complaint reason is never going to succeed as you almost certainly have no evidence to back up your allegation.    In that scenario, it would fall back to an eligibility and suitability check and that means you did have a financial need and the complaint would be rejected.

I must point out that I am not making a claim under the Plevin Rules, my complaint is that we did not need the policy in the first instance.
Plevin does not apply to life assurance (and doesnt apply to many mortgages).
As I mentioned, you almost certainly did have a financial need for life assurance.   Indeed, it almost seems daft for you to be complaining after the event that you dont need it.   Not taking out life assurance on a joint mortgage is nearly always a silly thing to do. Yet that is what you are arguing.   Its irrelevant though as the timebar puts an end to it anyway.

sharonphillips

Thank you for your reply. Just to clarify though, I’m not complaining about who the insurers were, just that we would not have needed the mortgage protection but we thought it was compulsory and I only found out that cover is not compulsory (although in some circumstances it does make sense to have cover of course), when I came upon the article which was written in June 2019. That is why I am arguing about it now so my question was whether I could overcome the hurdle of the time bar, but you say I can’t. Thank you for your time reading my post in any event.

dunstonh

ust that we would not have needed the mortgage protection but we thought it was compulsory and I only found out that cover is not compulsory (although in some circumstances it does make sense to have cover of course), when I came upon the article which was written in June 2019.
Complaints on that basis just dont succeed.  
What evidence do you have to support your allegation that you were told it was compulsory?   
So, even if they did consider the complaint, you would not succeed.

whether I could overcome the hurdle of the time bar, but you say I can’t.
The timebar seems valid within FCA rules (more than 3 years from expiry/cancellation being the key)