WFAC just informed me of the FOS response to my PPI claim.......

Fable1506

This one has gone on for a while...I have a claim via WFAC against Halifax for mis-sold PPI.  I was already covered by my employer for illness etc.
Halifax never even spoke to my wife and I about PPI when we signed up for our mortgage and it was not something I'd have taken anyway due to being covered.
Just heard yesterday from WFAC that the FOS have responded - 2 years later! - to my claim saying...and I quote:

"So far, FOS have agreed with us that your PPI was not sold properly, but have said this does not matter, and you should not be compensated, because even if Halifax had fully explained the PPI to you, you would still have bought it. FOS have said that you wouldn’t have cared about all the exclusions and limitations, or been put off by the cost - even though PPI was expensive."

A ludicrous comment and left me flabbergasted!
WFAC have suggested I write to the FOS refuting their 'opinion' and I'm wondering if anyone else has had this sort of response from the FOS and if so, how they dealt with it?
Thank you.

[Deleted User]

You need to ask WFAC to give you the proper response from FOS, not their nonsense interpretation of it.

Or better still, go direct and cut out these clowns.  You'll still end up paying them if your complaint is upheld (though it looks as it it won't be) but at least you won't have to deal with their gibberish and your gast will no longer be flabbered.

dunstonh

"So far, FOS have agreed with us that your PPI was not sold properly, but have said this does not matter, and you should not be compensated, because even if Halifax had fully explained the PPI to you, you would still have bought it. FOS have said that you wouldn’t have cared about all the exclusions and limitations, or been put off by the cost - even though PPI was expensive."

That is paraphrasing and interpretation of a FOS response.

The FOS have many times said that there is insufficient evidence to show whether a sale was fully compliant as it doesn't need to be 100% compliant with evidence.       The FOS are not agreeing with your CMC that is was not sold correctly.  That is the CMC adding their spin.   The FOS are saying that they cannot be sure it was sold 100% compliantly but not enough to believe that it would have changed the outcome.

The reference to exclusions and limitations again seems to be the CMC putting a spin on it.   Mortgage PPI is one fo the better forms of PPI and you could still buy it (one of only two types of PPI that you could).   Halifax's MPPI didnt have any exclusions or limitations that stood out compared to other types of MPPI.   This suggests your CMC may have used a template style complaint.  Often referred to a shotgun complaint that fires loads of reasons whether they actually apply or not.

Finally, the cost seems to be another CMC spin.    You paid this premium for years.   So, you knew the cost.   If you had an issue with the cost, you would have raised it earlier.   Bank sold products are nearly always more expensive than the whole of market products.  That is why people are told not to buy bank insurance, pension and investment products.  However, if you choose to do so then it is your choice.   So, price doesn't come into it.   Price is also not regulated and therefore nothing something you can complain about.

A ludicrous comment and left me flabbergasted!

I agree.  However, this is what you expect from CMCs.    Taking the FOS response and spinning it like that should not be a surprise.   It is not at all helpful to you.

WFAC have suggested I write to the FOS refuting their 'opinion' and I'm wondering if anyone else has had this sort of response from the FOS and if so, how they dealt with it?

The FOS are rejecting most PPI complaints now and MPPI, in particular, has always seen most complaints fail.     Your CMC should probably have set your expectations to be low before they submitted the complaint.    

Your complaint reasons, based solely on the bit you copied and pasted, appears to be weak.    None of it refers to a proper solid complaint reason that can be evidenced.  It all seems to be wishy washy lets fire as many reasons as we can and hope something sticks.   And nothing has stuck.       

So, did you actually have a  proper complaint reason or was it just a hit and hope?

The_squirrell

That will definitely be a claims management company paraphrasing the FOS response, as I have never seen a FOS response written in that way. Quite impressive for a CMC though, as the spelling is pretty good.

Fable1506

Thank you all. I have asked WFAC to send me the actual response ( so I can see if they have indeed paraphrased any part of the FOS response which wouldn't help my case in the slightest).
I do have to reiterate though that the company I worked for - with 20 years plus employment - provided me with ample  cover, 12 months full pay and 6  months half pay in case of illness and free health care for me and my family. PPI would not have been an option even if it were offered, which it wasn't.
What's really peeing me off is that Halifax did not ask me if I wanted / needed PPI but have underhandedly implemented it. 
I also had a loan with Halifax around the same time and indeed they've already reimbursed me the PPI element for that some 27 months ago.
I'll update as, when and if it ever gets resolved! 

brettcta

Given MPPI was usually set up as a separate direct debit to your actual mortgage payments, there’s nothing underhand about it. It’s as obvious as it can be.

-taff

You would have signed a nice little piece of paper to say you agreed. That's if it was a Halifax prodcut, You would also have noticed a payment going out every month.

[Deleted User]

Fable1506 said:

I have asked WFAC to send me the actual response ( so I can see if they have indeed paraphrased any part of the FOS response which wouldn't help my case in the slightest).

"If."

Good one. 😁

dunstonh

I do have to reiterate though that the company I worked for - with 20 years plus employment - provided me with ample  cover, 12 months full pay and 6  months half pay in case of illness and free health care for me and my family. PPI would not have been an option even if it were offered, which it wasn't.

It is an option as MPPI pays out in addition to work benefits.      If the PPI did not pay out in addition, then that would be a valid complaint reason.    As it does pay out in addition, then its not a complaint reason.

What's really peeing me off is that Halifax did not ask me if I wanted / needed PPI but have underhandedly implemented it. 

So, why did you pay it all those years?   Why did you not cancel it when you were sent the policy schedule and cancellation rights? 

I also had a loan with Halifax around the same time and indeed they've already reimbursed me the PPI element for that some 27 months ago.

Loan PPI had a lot a product issues that do not exist with regular premium MPPI.   This is why MPPI has always seen reduced complaint upheld decisions and loan PPI having the highest of any type of PPI.

Remember that there is nothing wrong with having MPPI.    There has to be sufficient information and/or evidence to point to something being wrong.   As it stands, no wrongdoing has been identified by Halifax or the FOS.

Fable1506

 I can honestly say I have never received any form of schedule or agreement. Also, having checked the bank statements I can get hold of ( my mortgage was paid off just over 5 years ago ) there is nothing on any of them to show any payments out which are ' out of the ordinary'. By that I mean I know what my monthly outgoings were and to whom and nothing untoward was charged.  I'm really perplexed now. Are WFAC actually correct in saying I HAD PPI or MPPI?  The more I look...and the more you guys post ( for which I am genuinely grateful ) the more confusion arises! In fairness to WFAC they did get me PPI refunded on a loan agreement and 2 lots refunded to my better half. Some of the comments on this thread are raising all sorts of doubts as to the veracity of this claim however. Please don't misunderstand, I'm much rather hear facts and advice whether good or bad than be left completely muddled. I did ask WFA to e-mail me the ACTUAL response from the FOS so I can see what it was and I'll post it here as and when.  Again, I do appreciate the comments since it's pretty obvious I've been completely naive over this and it does in all honesty ' sail over my head'.  Back to the headache tablets it is, then! 

brettcta

WFAC didn’t get you anything, they forwarded a complaint for you then invoiced you heavily for it. They don’t know what products you have unless you or the bank tells them. The fact it’s gone as far as the FOS suggests you did have an MPPI policy as otherwise your response would have just been ‘you did not have MPPI, we’re not overturning the bank’s rejection of your complaint.’