Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • peterwmac
    • By peterwmac 11th Jun 19, 9:00 PM
    • 2Posts
    • 1Thanks
    peterwmac
    Clarification on What Can be Claimed
    • #1
    • 11th Jun 19, 9:00 PM
    Clarification on What Can be Claimed 11th Jun 19 at 9:00 PM
    I've recently been enquiring about the potential of PPI being included in insurances related to two mortgages, (we moved from Halifax to Principality for a better deal). Both have responded with confirmation that no PPI was involved with either of the mortgages. So PPI claim stops here.
    However both companies required a buildings and contents insurance policy to be established I would not question this it is important, however both required that insurance was purchased through them.
    Looking through some old records (incomplete and sketchy) I do note that the cost for the insurances provided via Halifax and Principality were high (maybe twice the market rate).
    I'm assuming that the additional cost was related to commission paid to the lenders. At the time there was no indication or quantification of a commission fee.
    I appreciate the difference between this situation and PPI, however Plevin appears to highlight an expectation of transparency regarding high commission payments, so I'd be interested if any grounds for claim or recovery exist. If so what is the next step, if not I guess everything stops here.
Page 1
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 11th Jun 19, 9:28 PM
    • 24,735 Posts
    • 14,268 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 19, 9:28 PM
    • #2
    • 11th Jun 19, 9:28 PM
    Building and Contents insurance is NOT PPI.
    It was indeed compulsory.
    The commission paid is irrelevant as it's NOT PPI.
    The fact that cheaper B&C insurance was available is, again, irrelevant.
    The end (of your complaint).
    Sorry.
    • peterwmac
    • By peterwmac 12th Jun 19, 7:54 AM
    • 2 Posts
    • 1 Thanks
    peterwmac
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 19, 7:54 AM
    • #3
    • 12th Jun 19, 7:54 AM
    Thank you "Moneyineptitude"
    I understoodthis was not PPI related, but was interested on whether a "suspected" large commission fee collected by the lender could be challenged using a Plevin type argument.
    Clearly not, again thanks. As you say, the end.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th Jun 19, 11:57 AM
    • 98,597 Posts
    • 67,050 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 19, 11:57 AM
    • #4
    • 12th Jun 19, 11:57 AM
    I understoodthis was not PPI related, but was interested on whether a "suspected" large commission fee collected by the lender could be challenged using a Plevin type argument.
    There has never been a regulatory requirement to disclose commission. Indeed, there still isnt today. The Plevin outcome came about due to a change in s140a of the consumer credit act 2006 (Effective 2008).

    Home insurance doesnt come under the consumer credit act. Also, a lot of mortgages didnt either. They came under MCOB for many years.

    Plus, even if it did, the typical commission on home insurance is around 12-30%. Well under the tipping point used for PPI Plevin outcomes.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • The_squirrell
    • By The_squirrell 12th Jun 19, 1:00 PM
    • 157 Posts
    • 282 Thanks
    The_squirrell
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 19, 1:00 PM
    • #5
    • 12th Jun 19, 1:00 PM
    One last point in any cases such as this. While a certain level of insurance may have been required on the product type, you didn't have to take that product and could have chosen another from literally thousands of others from other lenders. I would imagine that you were very happy with the product as it was a "better deal" which is why it was chosen.

    I do wish that we would start to see Complaints for what they actually are, rather than digging around in the dirt. Complaints should always be dealt with thoroughly and fairly and we all should be able to claim for what is wrongfully sold or where mistakes happen.
    Claiming for something we "hope" for is altogether different
    I work in Data Protection and spend my days dealing with CMC's. Only here trying to help!!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

75Posts Today

1,998Users online

Martin's Twitter