Nationwide Building Society - refusing to consider a PPI claim without the joint applicant - discrim

BrightonMargot

I started to use UClaim4Me in October 2018 when I retired.  I sent details of various lenders where I may have had PPI and at one stage they told me that they had discovered that I did have a PPI policy in force associated with my borrowing.
I have supplied them with endless information including a copy of a letter from Nationwide dated 11th March 1996 that clearly stated that the monthly insurance premium includes Payment Protection.

I have explained that I divorced in April 1996 and have had no contact with my ex husband and that indeed I don't have any contact details and don't know if he is dead or alive. I've also sent them evidence of my divorce being in full and final settlement.

At one stage UClaim4Me told me (probably on a recording somewhere) that if there was any refund of PPI due then I would be entitled to 50% of the refund as I could not produce my ex husband. I had asked them to use their underwriting team to look into this as surely I am not the only divorced woman who is in this situation?  UClaim4Me have been using the Covid 19 situation to say that lenders are taking 12 weeks to respond to claims.  This has dragged on since May 2020.

Finally on 19 November 2020 I received a very dismissive email from one of UClaim4Me's staff to say "Administration cancelled the claim as Nationwide will not process the claim without the joint applicant for the finance.  As the finance is a mortgage is in joint names.  This means all of your claims have now been resolved due to no PPI or missing information".
I feel that this action by UClaim4Me without consulting me after 2 years is very shoddy indeed.  Also more importantly that Nationwide are trying to wriggle out of making even a 50% payment to me and I see that this is discrimination against a divorced female pensioner.
I welcome your views and also whether you think it is worth my taking this up with the FCA.  Thanks in advance 

[Deleted User]

Shoddy is essentially what claims companies offer, so no point in ploughing that particular furrow.

It's also not discrimination against either divorcees, women or pensioners, as it's about missing information, which is also applicable to young married men.

However, rather than deal with the claims company, I suggest you contact Nationwide to discuss it directly. If they have enough evidence of mis selling, they would be likely to be make a 50% payment,  However, that may not be possible depending on your complaint reasons and whether they can be supported. If, for example, your complaint was that your husband had significant savings, they would be looking for you to to evidence that.

dunstonh

I have supplied them with endless information including a copy of a letter from Nationwide dated 11th March 1996 that clearly stated that the monthly insurance premium includes Payment Protection.

Can you clarify what you mean by that?  You cannot have PPI on insurance unless the insurance policy itself is PPI or it is providing PPI coverage.

At one stage UClaim4Me told me (probably on a recording somewhere) that if there was any refund of PPI due then I would be entitled to 50% of the refund as I could not produce my ex husband. I had asked them to use their underwriting team to look into this as surely I am not the only divorced woman who is in this situation?  UClaim4Me have been using the Covid 19 situation to say that lenders are taking 12 weeks to respond to claims.  This has dragged on since May 2020.

On joint plans, the settlement on a successful case is usually split on the basis of the coverage.  So, if the PPI was set up with 50/50 coverage then you would get 50%.  If it was set up with 75/25 coverage then you would get your respective split.  If it was set up 100/0 (as often was the case with some mortgage PPI - although it appears you are not talking about mortgage PPI here as Nationwide retailed MPPI as a standalone product and not built into another product) then it could go solely to the person covered 100%.  Typically that was the main earner in those cases.   The claims company shouldn't need to investigate this as its pretty standard across the board.

Finally on 19 November 2020 I received a very dismissive email from one of UClaim4Me's staff to say "Administration cancelled the claim as Nationwide will not process the claim without the joint applicant for the finance.  As the finance is a mortgage is in joint names.  This means all of your claims have now been resolved due to no PPI or missing information".
I feel that this action by UClaim4Me without consulting me after 2 years is very shoddy indeed. 

I fear your expectations with a claims company were higher than reality.    

 Also more importantly that Nationwide are trying to wriggle out of making even a 50% payment to me and I see that this is discrimination against a divorced female pensioner.

Being retired is not something you can be discriminated against.    Plus, it has no impact on the decision

Being female is something you can be discriminated against.  However, they are not doing that and it has no impact on the decision.

Being divorced is something you cannot be discriminated against.   It does have an impact on the decision but no more than an unmarried couple who split up and lost contact.

So, there is absolutely no discrimination here.

I welcome your views and also whether you think it is worth my taking this up with the FCA. 

The FCA do not consider consumer complaints.   So, you cant take it up with them.   You using the term FCA could be a mistype on your part. Maybe you meant the FOS as they are the ones that act as independent arbiters on rejected complaints where you are not happy with the outcome.   However, the FOS have published decisions in this scenario and have said that where there are two parties involved, it is reasonable to require both parties and rejected the complaint.  This is despite some banks that have taken on joint complaints from just one party.  It seems to be a voluntary decision rather than a mandated one.