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
    • 597money
    • By 597money 5th Mar 18, 3:29 PM
    • 39Posts
    • 19Thanks
    597money
    Santander (was N&P then Abbey) Mortgage Help?
    • #1
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:29 PM
    Santander (was N&P then Abbey) Mortgage Help? 5th Mar 18 at 3:29 PM
    I have finally found paper work for my old mortgage from the last century that had an PPI element (or as they called it PAS Personal Accident Sickness) - it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.

    I have my Mortgage Account Number together with a yearly statement showing that PAS was being paid.

    I do not have specific information on the exact start and end dates of the mortgage and I do not have specific account number for the insurance as it was part of the mortgage.

    What is the best way to make a claim? I have got confused by the templates as they are asking for things that I do not have, or can't be exact and/or not applicable to me and the Resolver online option seem a bit dodgy?

    Should I be using Resolver to make my claim (they direct it to the correct company) or should I be phoning Santander direct or writing them a letter?

    Thanks
Page 1
    • zx81
    • By zx81 5th Mar 18, 3:31 PM
    • 16,794 Posts
    • 17,805 Thanks
    zx81
    • #2
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:31 PM
    • #2
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:31 PM
    it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.
    Originally posted by 597money
    That means it wasn't mis sold, so no need for either claim (unless you have suffered a claimable event and the policy is still live) or complaint.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Mar 18, 3:47 PM
    • 92,564 Posts
    • 59,863 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #3
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:47 PM
    • #3
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:47 PM
    it was a condition of the mortgage at the time you *had* to have it.
    Well done on finding that. If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold. There were quite a lot of deals in the 90s which required an insurance cross subsidy purchase. so, maybe it was one of those.

    What is the best way to make a claim?
    What is your reason for complaint? As it was a condition of borrowing, your reasons for complaint are going to be limited.
    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.
    • 597money
    • By 597money 5th Mar 18, 3:52 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    597money
    • #4
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:52 PM
    • #4
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:52 PM
    Can you clarify for me why I do not meet the very first condition then? Thanks for continued help.


    A. Were you told it was compulsory?

    It's a common complaint that consumers are told they must buy a policy from the same provider as the loan to be accepted for the product. This is mis-selling.
    • zx81
    • By zx81 5th Mar 18, 3:55 PM
    • 16,794 Posts
    • 17,805 Thanks
    zx81
    • #5
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:55 PM
    • #5
    • 5th Mar 18, 3:55 PM
    That applies when you were told it was compulsory, but it wasn't in reality.
    • 597money
    • By 597money 5th Mar 18, 4:06 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    597money
    • #6
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:06 PM
    • #6
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:06 PM
    I remember the day well. This PAS payment was queried when we first got the statement all them decades ago. We were told we had to have it together with their home insurance. It was just there whether it was applicable for us or not. This is very confusing?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Mar 18, 4:20 PM
    • 92,564 Posts
    • 59,863 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #7
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:20 PM
    • #7
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:20 PM
    If you were told it was compulsory and lied to (i.e. it wasnt) then that is a missale reason. When it is compulsory then it is not a missale.

    This is very confusing?
    No its not. If it was compulsory then you had to have it. No missale.

    FOS decision on a similar complaint:
    http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=54228
    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.
    • 597money
    • By 597money 5th Mar 18, 4:37 PM
    • 39 Posts
    • 19 Thanks
    597money
    • #8
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:37 PM
    • #8
    • 5th Mar 18, 4:37 PM
    Thanks much clearer.
    • H&C
    • By H&C 5th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    H&C
    • #9
    • 5th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    Advised or execution only sale
    • #9
    • 5th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    "If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold"...this is not so, the FCA Principles always apply, as does ICOBS (or ICOB), depending on when the sale of the PPI policy was sold.

    PRIN 2.1.1 (Principle 7) states that "A firm must pay due regard to the information needs of its clients, and communicate information to them in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading"

    ICOBS 6.1.5 states that "A firm must take reasonable steps to ensure a customer is given appropriate information about a policy in good time and in a comprehensible form so that the customer can make an informed decision about the arrangements proposed".

    Because the policy "was a condition of borrowing", does not mean that the sale cannot have been missold. Far from it, not informing customers of the exclusions in the policy etc. was probably the main reason why PPI policies were missold. In many cases customers just never understood what they were paying for. Very few (if anyone) would have asked for PPI to be added to their loan/credit, therefore the policy must have been advised (i.e. not an “execution-only” sale). A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 5th Mar 18, 6:37 PM
    • 92,564 Posts
    • 59,863 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Yes, the insurance still has to be suitable but we are talking about an MPPI policy here. Not a loan or credit card PPI.

    Far from it, not informing customers of the exclusions in the policy etc. was probably the main reason why PPI policies were missold.
    Yet most MPPi complaints are rejected.
    A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.
    Proving that is easier said than done. If it was a loan PPI we were talking about, then it would be far easier. However, we are talking about one of the good types of PPI. So, fewer issues.
    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.
    • -taff
    • By -taff 5th Mar 18, 7:52 PM
    • 7,406 Posts
    • 5,486 Thanks
    -taff
    A lender can make (mostly) anything a condition of borrowing (as long as it is lawful), provided the customer understands what he/she is buying. And in many cases, they didn't.
    Originally posted by H&C
    Or they forget.
    • H&C
    • By H&C 6th Mar 18, 8:47 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    H&C
    "However, we are talking about (MPPI) one of the good types of PPI"
    PPI and MPPI are neither good products nor bad products, it always depends on the consumer's circumstances and whether or not the product was suitable for their needs at the point of sale. PPI (and MPPI) is a niche product, sold to the mass-market product. Unfortunately PPI and MPPI was sold to generate massive profits for the providers with little or no concern about the consumer. If the products (PPI & MPPI) were sold correctly, banks would never have had to repay the billions back in compensation to consumers. It's unfortunate that the banks have also tried to deny consumers fair outcomes when the complaint has been mis-sold, which is why so many cases are upheld at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and many more cannot be bothered to take it any further...this is also a scandal.If banks and other financial institutions treated consumer's complaints fairly, the uphold rate at the FOS would be very small, unfortunately it is not.

    However, assessing suitability isn't hard to do, if the advisers understand the product and they ask the consumer the correct questions. PPI was sold because staff had to hit their sales targets (or to keep their jobs), to gain promotion or simply for the incentives that the banks put in place. Although Lloyds Bank were fined £28M for this (see the FCA webpage "FCA fines Lloyds Banking Group firms a total of £28,038,800 for serious sales incentive failings"), this was commonplace throughout the industry, not just at Lloyds Bank. This has no place in selling financial products. PRIN 2.1.1 (Principle 6) states that "A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly." Unfortunately they had no "regard to the interests of its customers", only the interests of the bank or financial institution. And Principle 9 states "A firm must take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions for any customer who is entitled to rely upon its judgment". FCA Principles are Rules, not just general statements of what firms should do.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 6th Mar 18, 10:47 AM
    • 92,564 Posts
    • 59,863 Thanks
    dunstonh
    PPI and MPPI are neither good products nor bad products,
    That is not really the case though is it. Loan PPI, for example, because of the of the way it was structured and the amount it cost vs the benefit in most cases means that most loan PPI was considered missold. You cannot buy loan PPI today. Whereas most regular premium standalone PPI/MPPI complaints fail. You can still buy those today.

    Complaints are frequently upheld on loan PPI for structural reasons (i.e. product failings). Whereas you rarely see that on MPPI (single premium, for example, is nearly always considered bad. Nationwide were rare on not covering self-employed whereas most MPPI does, without onerous clauses).

    There is no argument over why or how the bank clerks over sold it.
    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.
    • H&C
    • By H&C 6th Mar 18, 6:42 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    H&C
    This is my last post on the issue of MPPI mis-selling...

    The following is an extract from Ombudsman News issue 118 (July 2014):
    "We (the FOS) receive complaints from consumers who say they were told MPPI was compulsory - and are now questioning whether they were misled. We know that some businesses used to make taking out MPPI a condition of approving certain mortgage applications - for example, where the “loan to income ratio” (the size of the mortgage in relation to the borrower’s income) was high.

    Businesses were allowed to do this - so we won’t automatically decide that the policy was mis-sold. But we will check that the consumer could benefit from the policy in the event of a claim. We will also consider whether the situation was clearly explained to the consumer - so that they could make an informed choice about whether the overall offer was right for them.

    If we find shortcomings in the way an MPPI policy was sold - and decide that the consumer wouldn’t have taken it out if they had received better advice or information - we generally tell the business to put the consumer in the position they would be in if they hadn’t been sold the policy. This often involves a refund of the premiums with interest. Where limited records exist, we will make our decision on the balance of probabilities."
    • Partridge89
    • By Partridge89 6th Mar 18, 7:39 PM
    • 46 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Partridge89
    Is that not what dunstonh was saying, that the PPI can!!!8217;t be deemed mis-sold solely for the reason that it was compulsory as long as it was actually compulsory?
    • H&C
    • By H&C 6th Mar 18, 9:46 PM
    • 8 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    H&C
    Sorry - but what was said was "If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold". Clearly the FOS do not say that.
    • Moneyineptitude
    • By Moneyineptitude 6th Mar 18, 11:03 PM
    • 20,133 Posts
    • 11,077 Thanks
    Moneyineptitude
    Sorry - but what was said was "If it was a condition of borrowing, you cannot be missold". Clearly the FOS do not say that.
    Originally posted by H&C
    I thought you said your last post on this issue was post #14?
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 6th Mar 18, 11:15 PM
    • 92,564 Posts
    • 59,863 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Ok, I shortened my usual response from that on other threads by leaving out that the insurance still needs to be suitable. However, the fact is that if they say it was a condition of borrowing, then you are likely to be on a hiding for nothing.
    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.
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

405Posts Today

4,874Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin