PPI claim - cancelled policy - exceptional circumstances

cymruchris

A member of my family was paying a PPI policy on a mortgage from around 2006 - and was continuing to pay it past retirement - until they realised that the cover wouldn't cover anything, and so cancelled the policy in 2012 - but at that time wasn't something that could be reclaimed.  The deadline for submission for the majority of claims was August 2019 - and although the member of family concerned was going to submit a claim, their partner passed away suddenly in May 2019, and basically everything went to pot for a time and it's only the last couple of months that they've been able to get back on top of things. Having read that in exceptional circumstances a claim could still be submitted - I've suggested they have nothing to lose in at least submitting a letter outlining the reasons for the delayed claim.

I've seen the standard templates from websites such as 'Which' - which all seem fairly straightforward.

My question is - in the reasons for why we believe it was mis-sold - should we mention that nobody ever informed them that the policy would only cover whilst in employment - and that they were happy to continue to take the policy payments beyond retirement age, but that as they'd realised there was no further cover, they did in fact cancel it in 2012, or should the points remain concise around:

• I was not told that the insurance was optional.
• I was led to believe my application for credit would be rejected if I did not take out the insurance.
• The policy exclusions were not explained to me either before, or at the time, I took out the insurance. I was therefore unable to make an informed decision as to whether this insurance was appropriate for me.

A bit of input from others would be welcome if you've been through a similar process with a policy that you cancelled but then later claimed back. Thanks..

[Deleted User]

You're just using generic template complaints which you would struggle to prove and they might not even be relevant, there will be a strong chance the lender still has reconstituted copies of the application form for similar complaints which will show the insurance was opt-in. The second point - how would you prove that? The third point - how would you prove that?

MPPI even back then could well have been sold by an advisor who would have explained everything - do you even know how the policy was taken out?

Cancelled in 2012 = allows the complaint to be time barred under 3 year rule, also fails 6 year rule as policy taken out in 2006
Complaint deadline = passed so can be time barred

You never could reclaim any policy, but you have always been able to complain about the policy, whether in 2012 or whenever.
2 months is one thing e.g. if you were submitting a complaint in September 2019, with the death the FOS might push the lender to look at it, but you're talking nearly 18 months after the deadline - not a chance in hell this will go anywhere.

dunstonh

 their partner passed away suddenly in May 2019, and basically everything went to pot for a time and it's only the last couple of months that they've been able to get back on top of things. 

For a post deadline complaint to be considered, the whole of the period from the date of death until now has to be justified as to why the complaint was not raised earlier.    Upto 6 months is generally considered the norm on bereavements but there is no hard and fast rule as long as the whole delay can be explained and believed.  18 months is going to be a hard job to explain away.

- until they realised that the cover wouldn't cover anything, and so cancelled the policy in 2012 - but at that time wasn't something that could be reclaimed. 

There is the potential for the timebar to be applied to that.  You need to raise a complaint within 6 years of purchase or three years of being reasonably aware of an issue. Whichever is the longer.  A cancellation in 2012 could be sufficient to reject considering the complaint under the timebar rules.

I've seen the standard templates from websites such as 'Which' - which all seem fairly straightforward.

Templates have a lower success rate in general.  They tend to be a scattergun approach that lists a load of potential generic reasons rather than personalised reasons.   If you use reasons that are not personalised and the seller of the policy has evidence that shows the complainant it telling lies then credibility is lost and that can harm on complaints where a balance of probability decision is required (which is an awful lot of the time)

My question is - in the reasons for why we believe it was mis-sold - should we mention that nobody ever informed them that the policy would only cover whilst in employment 

It's a weak allegation that cannot be proven.  Especially as the sales paperwork would cover that point.

- and that they were happy to continue to take the policy payments beyond retirement age, 

Did the insurance company know the complainant had retired?
That is not a missale complaint by the way.  Its a separate complaint.

• I was not told that the insurance was optional.

Most fraudulent complaints use that reason too.  It is a weak unprovable allegation.  Very rare for complaints to be upheld on that point.

• I was led to believe my application for credit would be rejected if I did not take out the insurance.

Again, like above, this is used frequently in fraudulent complaints and is usually unprovable. Very rare for complaints to be upheld on that point.

• The policy exclusions were not explained to me either before, or at the time, I took out the insurance. I was therefore unable to make an informed decision as to whether this insurance was appropriate for me.

That sounds bogus seeing a mortgage adviser was used.   Its a reason more typically used on non-adviser sales.   

A complaints handler seeing these reasons you have listed will instantly think this is a try-it-on complaint as they would have seen them time and again before.  There is no personalisation to them.  As a mortgage adviser was involved and it was post 2005, then there will be a factfind, needs analysis and a statement of demands and needs.    So, the audit trail should be much better and easily refute those points.

The missale allegation does seem to be a try-it-on.    The paying past retirement could have legs and is not subject to the deadline as its not a missale complaint.    It all depends on whether he told the insurer he had retired or if he was past the maximum age the policy would have covered.