Jump to content

freelance

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

  1. Hello luluspice Did they ever send you a policy for the insurance? If so what does it say in there about claiming again on the policy?
  2. No. I am yet to see an example of a customer who refused to take up a mortgage without a mortgage protection policy which they didn't want, didn't need, didn't understand, couldn't really afford or had no chance of benefitting from or who begged their bank to let them have one against the bank's advice. The banks on the other hand frequently and consistently had no qualms about using whatever means possible to tick all those boxes for instant gratification in terms of targets and bonuses and long term gratification in terms of premiums paid. This was made so much easier by the cultivation of a reverse client/supplier relationship and the mis-use/abuse of the word 'advisor'. Mis-guided trust in someone whose job it was to advise but whose business it was to sell is not a reason for guilt. Mis-complaining, however, is an entirely different matter.
  3. The level of cover remains the same for a fixed term, so if you die at any time during the term of the policy the payout will remain the same, if you die after there's no payout. The premiums can be fixed or reviewable.
  4. I'm waiting for their SAR response at the mo - I'll be going after them if they dig up any paperwork. They've still got three weeks to respond.
  5. Hello there, I'm wondering if anyone can give me their thoughts on the following. Repayment Mortgage applied for in 1997, first time buyer, single, no dependents, self employed. Bank insisted on Life Insurance as condition of mortgage. I understand that even though Life Insurance is not an appropriate product for single person/no deps that banks routinely demanded the insurance anyway during this era and were allowed to do so. Bank arranged for advisor to call specifically to sort out Life Insurance required for mortgage, advisor aware that there was absolutely no prior knowledge of any insurance products at all and life cover to fulfill mortgage application was only criteria. Advisor recommended Level Term Assurance with Critical Illness. Critical Illness discussed only as part of Life Insurance product, need for critical illness cover not discussed at any other time and no mention made that this was a consierably more expensive combined product not a standard Life Insurance policy, the latter being all that was required. Advisor recommended the product as ' best value for money' without providing details for any other products. Also failed to explain that premiums could rise. Correct paperwork sent through including 'reason why' document and medical questionaire etc but nowhere on paperwork did it explain that this was a combined product, just a Level Term Assurance product, did not state LTA was available without CI or that CI was optional anywhere. Policy taken out in good faith as trusted bank completely. Shortly after policy taken out bank stopped demanding Life Insurance as condition of mortgage products - failed to inform, only found out by chance in 2011 so single person no dependants has been paying for combined Level Term Assurance (for no reason) and Critical Illness (unwittingly) for 14 years including two price hikes. Policy cancelled immediately and complaint lodged. Bank has already issued a final response saying not a mis-sale but advisor also mis-sold PPI during same sales call, (PPI upheld by FOS) Is it worth taking the Life Insurance to the FOS as a mis-sale - it doesn't seem right at all. At the very least wouldn't Decreasing have been the appropriate starting point (which was a a product they had available at the time I've since found out) if it's accepted that the Life Insurance was a condition of the mortgage in 1997, however inappropriate. Many thanks - hope that makes sense
  6. Hey Bee, I'm helping a friend with a Morgan Stanley CC PPI complaint - they're self employed as well. They were also turned down by Morgan Stanley. The letter received from them was clearly a template so we've gone back and asked them to re-investigate the complaint as despite giving their final response they haven't actually shown they've actually investigated the complaint at all. If we don't hear back from them in the next week or so we'll be taking it to the FOS. Was hoping to avoid this because of the queue but so be it. I'll let you know what happens. Fingers crossed
  7. Hello there, I would write back and state that they have failed to provide all the information requested and they have 14 days to produce it. To be honest they only have to keep records for a minimum of 6 years and can either legally hide behind that or genuinely may not have the records any more (especially on closed accounts). Request that they provide you with details as to how these records they claim they no longer have were destroyed. For those accounts they have sent you paperwork for make sure they have also provided with you with details of who the underwriter is/was for the PPI policies (who may hold records going back further too) as TSB should have provided you with any third party records as well. You may not get much more off them but it shows you're not going away. Once you've exhausted the paper trail put in claims for each of the accounts. You don't have to put figures on your claim and in this case I wouldn't. If your claim is successful it's actually up to the bank to come up with the figures - which should be based on the FOS model (check their website for examples) - you can then dispute them if they look wrong. In some cases where paperwork is missing there is the potential for additional money being added to the refund 'based' on the known figures - that may involve the FOS if the bank are being difficult. With regards to mortgage PPI - if it was paid by monthly direct debit, rather than single premium, there may be evidence of it coming out of your bank account each month, if you have statements going back that far. (When I started doing this I had literally just had a huge clear out and had shredded and thrown away old statements etc which would have given me ALL the info I needed, still haven't forgiven myself!) The most important thing of all is your complaint - the reason for the mis-sale - being valid.
  8. I was advised by the FOS not to bank a cheque (still in dispute) in case it was considered an acceptance of the refund as full and final settlement - just to be on the safe side. It seems to be a bit of a grey area. I tried to get the bank to send me a letter saying that if I did bank it they understood it was on the understanding the matter was still on-going but they wouldn't, they said they would 'take it in to consideration'. Sit on the cheque.
  9. Barclaycard for my friend. Pre-ticked box you say! Go after them for the lot then. You may have to rely on the FOS to uphold it though. I'd still be interested to know why they've offered a refund of that one specific year. I'd ask for a justification of their offer, they've made things a bit over-complicated for themselves by being so specific rather than just going for a random goodwill offer to try and make you go away. Personally I'd also give the FOS a call at this stage and ask them their thoughts - don't lodge an official complaint with them, just have a chat.
  10. What was your situation at the time you applied for the card in February 2006? Did you tell them then that you were entering full time education in September 2006? It is your situation at the time of the sale that matters, not what happens afterwards, that's not their problem. If you were in full-time employment, for instance, when you knowingly took out the PPI and there was no other reason for complaint about the sale at that time then technically it's not a mis-sale. Alternatively if you let them know at any point that you were becoming or had become a full-time student in September 2006 and they mis-informed you that your PPI would still cover you while you were in full-time education then they would be at fault. I've been going through something similar with a friend's complaint. She was employed when she took out the card (on-line application) but became self-employed a year later. According to both the card company and the FOS, no mis-sale on that basis and no refund. The only thing in her favour was that the card company had failed to provide any policy documents (which they deny) and therefore she wasn't aware that she wasn't covered under their self-employment exclusions when she switched to being self-employed. After a lot of letters she's been offered a good will payment by the card. The FOS have suggested over the phone that she might want to accept the offer rather than take the case to them as they said they would still have to base their decision solely on the time of the sale (when she was employed) so realistically would be unlikely to uphold it - and the card company can just withdraw their goodwill offer at any time. Do as ims21 says and find out exactly why they're offering you a refund for that period of time, they seem to basing their refund on the time you became a student - if this is effectively a goodwill offer then at least try and get them to cover the whole period of time you were a student, presuming it was longer than one year. If there was any other reason why you believe you were mis-sold the policy specifically at the time of the sale or they refused to let you cancel the policy at any time or gave you incorrect information at a later date knowing your circumstances had changed then fight them for the lot.
  11. I did start threads for some of my PPI complaints but I didn't update them really! It was such a maddening experience trying to get PPI back before the judicial review I think my posts would have put most people off trying! No reason not to try now though........... I was going after Creation for both late fees and PPI. I sent them an SAR and they immediately applied the £10 to my card which was already paid off like yours and put me £10 in credit - and then they did nothing else at all. They then claimed I'd never sent them an SAR and had just randomly sent a cheque to my own account. After a lot of prodding they claimed they couldn't locate my original application form (which had been filled out entirely by the girl in the shop) and sent me a blank application form for a completely different card. They then sent me a completely random selection of statements which is all they said they had on record for my account. After months of getting nowhere I went to the FOS who, at the time, couldn't do much and Creation had refused to supply details of the insurer - who the FOS had said they might be able to chase but I had to get the details myself. I went back to Creation, threatened them with the ICO for failing to to supply details of the PPI policy and insurer as part of the SAR. They replied by referring to their response to my SAR and then claiming I'd never sent them one, all in the same letter! After one final letter threatening the ICO and including copies of all correspondence between Creation and myself they then offered to refund the late fees and PPI premiums as a goodwill gesture. They added 8% as well but not quite how it should have been done, but to be honest I couldn't be bothered to chase them anymore, looking back at the paperwork it was actually almost 18months since I'd sent the SAR by this point! I also managed to get my PPI back from Ikano (Habitat card) around the same time with a similar experience - they eventually tripped themselves up by doctoring a letter and forgetting they'd already sent me the original - goodwill gesture followed very quickly! See what you get back in your SAR (which will be incomplete) and then come down on them like a ton of bricks making it clear that your will be reporting them to the ICO as well as the FOS. It might be worth noting that as you have done your SAR after your PPI complaint they should also be sending you details of your PPI complaint and their investigation into it as part of their response, including computer records - if they fail to do this it's proof if nothing else that they've failed to respond in full. Also I'm not sure what the situation is with the FOS and store cards at the moment - some of the store cards wouldn't have been regulated so make sure you get the insurer/underwriter's details off the Creation as an alternative route and include those in any correspondence you have with the FOS if you end up referring your complaint to them. As part of the SAR Creation should be supplying details of any third parties they have dealt with on your account - that includes the insurer/underwriter for the PPI. Finally, if you feel that they have failed to investigate your complaints properly (i.e. they've sent you standard responses which don't refer to your specific complaint) you can complain to them again despite the 'Final Response'. It may not get you any further but pointing out this additional failing, making it clear your next step is the FOS, does no harm. Fingers crossed and remember you have absolutely nothing to lose
  12. Keep at them - I got them to pay up on my PPI complaint a year before the judicial review, it took a year but they caved in eventually. They handled it appallingly, tried every trick in the book so don't give them an inch and just remember that as you have no debt left on the cards that every day they drag this out the 8% statutory interest they'll also have to pay you will keep racking up. Good luck
  13. Many policies do claim to offer cover for the self-employed. The problem is that the 'exact terms' which apply to the self-employed in the ever-elusive policy documents made it almost impossible for anyone self-employed to successfully claim on the policy. Just because they say they cover something doesn't mean they'll ever pay out on a claim. Most people selling these policies didn't even understand what 'self-employed' meant, let alone asked any questions about the nature of that person's self-employment, explained the terms or any exclusions or provided policy documents. It's also a standard response of banks, when confronted with a mis-selling complaint, to just blindly quote that they do 'cover self-employed people' regardless.
  14. I have two PPI complaints with Barclaycard awaiting a decision on behalf of a friend - on one of them she was self-employed at the time of taking out the card, the other she was employed but then became self-employed shortly after and unaware that the PPI was no longer appropriate as Barclays had never provided any details or policy documents for either policy. The second claim is less likely to be upheld because it's the situation at the time of the sale that is taken into consideration. However as Barclays had failed to fully inform her and she was considering self-employment at the time it was taken out it's still worth complaining about anyway, nothing ventured nothing gained etc. Their time is up this week for responding so I'll let you know what their response is if it helps. I'm also self-employed and I've had no problems having any complaints upheld except for HSBC, which has now gone to the FOS. That was MPPI so I was also nervous about mortgage and current accounts etc if they turned nasty. It's my understanding that if you take them to court they're more likely to end their relationship with you - to be honest the FSA etc can take a dim view but what they can actually do about it I'm not sure. A bank can certainly end their relationship and close the accounts of any customer for no reason at all if they want, as long as they stick to their own published rules about giving notice. Not sure about whether they can do this with mortgages - I'd like to think it was more complicated for them to shut a mortgage down! Personally if you're not in a mad hurry for the money I'd go FOS first, despite the wait (and the 8%, if applicable, keeps accruing during that time). If the FOS don't uphold you can then still go to court - you can't do court then FOS.
×
×
  • Create New...