Ex Husbands Receivers got my share

Kobs

Been fighting for PPI for along time and finally got a answer back from a third party against our mortgage from years ago, after we had been in touch directly with Santander who said we hadn't got anything.  My ex husband lives in Scotland and we have been separated since 2016 we are now just divorced.  He also was made bankrupt last year volentary.   Santander said that they would return part of the PPI insurance policy that was attached to the mortgage only amounting to £1400.00, which the bank sent direct to my husband but that went to the loss adjuster of the receivers.   I spoke with them saying that 50% of it was mine and they said that it wasn't because the policy was in my husbands name only, even though it was against the mortgage which was in joint names.    Is this correct? as without my name on the mortgage and my salary input there would not have been a mortgage, as back then they took both salaries into account.  The third party now want to send the rest of the PPI claim onto the Financial Obudsman as Santander have now confirmed with the part payout that we actually did have PPI but I am now reluctant to do that for the loss adjuster.  Is the loss adjuster correct in not letting me have 50% of it just because the bank Santander says that it was just in my ex Husbands name.  Thank you in advance. 

[Deleted User]

They're correct.  The policy and redress was his, so it goes to the OR. No one got your share, because you didn't have a share.

You'll also need to pay the third party their fees unless you can argue they knew of the bankruptcy.

nyermen

Deleted_User said:

You'll also need to pay the third party their fees unless you can argue they knew of the bankruptcy.

Under that situation, wouldn't it be argued that there was no PPI to claim if she instructed the third party (no win no fee?).  Winning for another party surely wouldn't count?

[Deleted User]

It surely does. Any redress that is won will generate the fee. It doesn't matter if it goes to the policy holder or not.

Their only hope is to argue they shouldn't have taken on the case for a bankrupt.

dunstonh

I spoke with them saying that 50% of it was mine and they said that it wasn't because the policy was in my husbands name only, even though it was against the mortgage which was in joint names.

It is the insurance that matters. Not the debt.   Had the insurance been in joint names, then you would get a share relative to the split on the insurance.   Having 100% in one name is very common.  e.g. if only one spouse is working or if one spouse is the main earner.

The third party now want to send the rest of the PPI claim onto the Financial Obudsman as Santander have now confirmed with the part payout that we actually did have PPI but I am now reluctant to do that for the loss adjuster.  Is the loss adjuster correct in not letting me have 50% of it just because the bank Santander says that it was just in my ex Husbands name.

Why would it be referred to the FOS?   Santander upheld the complaint.  There is nothing for the FOS to rule on.
Where does a loss adjustor come into it?  (they don't get involved in the PPI complaints process)

This is not a grey area.   The PPI redress is paid to the policyowner, unless they are bankrupt, have arrears, defaults or amounts written off as part of an agreed debt.   You are not a policyholder. So, you dont get anything.

Kobs

But the PPI was against the mortgage which was in both our names as both our salaries were put into account to get the mortgage and the reason for it being in my Ex's name is that it was just put down as my ex was the first name on the account ir the lead name.
The Financial Ombudsman was mentioned as Santander said that we hadn't had PPI but a third party proved we had and Santander only paid out the PPI insurance Policy amounts paid in £1400.00 and not any interest over the years of the mortgage policy that the PPI was for... Hope that makes sense. 
My Ex husband declared himself bankrupt but I am not. 

Kind Regards 

Kobs

Oh and the Loss Ajuster is paying the third party fee out of the £1400.00 after he had negotiated a reduced amount.

Kind Regards. 

roonaldo

Kobs said:

But the PPI was against the mortgage which was in both our names as both our salaries were put into account to get the mortgage 

The question has been answered already.  Santander are correct, you are not the policy holder of the PPI so not due anything,  FOS cannot change that.

dunstonh

But the PPI was against the mortgage which was in both our names as both our salaries were put into account to get the mortgage and the reason for it being in my Ex's name is that it was just put down as my ex was the first name on the account ir the lead name.

PPI is one thing.  The mortgage is another.      The complaint was about the PPI. Not the mortgage.      You dont even need a mortgage to have PPI.     You were not a policy owner for the PPI. It is as simple as that.    The bank account you pay bills and things from is irrelevant too.   That is just method of payment.

Oh and the Loss Ajuster is paying the third party fee out of the £1400.00 after he had negotiated a reduced amount.

Do you mean official receiver rather than loss adjuster?   A loss adjuster is someone who is paid by an insurance company to investigate claims for losses (e.g. car accident claim, house insurance claim etc).  Loss adjusters do not get involved in PPI complaints.
If its the bankruptcy administrator then they are usually referred to as the official receiver.    I dont know why they are paying the claims company as only the person that employs the claims company is liable for the fee.   They could have argued that one if they wanted to.  But as it isn't their money, I suppose they dont really care.