Mortgage PPI

[philtay]

My girlfriend's mortgage taken out in 1989 was subject to compulsory PPI. ie it was a condition of the loan. Were the banks allowed to do that? If not what piece of legislation forbids it?

[old_andrew2007]

bump

[alanalana]

hello philtay,

welcome to the ppi forum.

please check out the stickies at the top of the forum it may save you a lot of time in posting and waiting for someone to answer.

a few to get you started...

Links that may help with your claim for Mis-sold PPI
Financial Ombudsman Service
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...-insurance.pdf
Ensuring Personal Data is handled correctly - Data Protection Act
Financial Services Authority

For claims before 2005 and the FSA ruling from which campaign
Payment protection | Were you mis-sold PPI? | PPI - rules before 2005
Payment protection | Were you mis-sold PPI? | PPI - the rules

you should also find what you need to start your claim ie Subject Access Request information and much more. it takes some trawling through but a lot of useful stuff is available to you.

good luck

aa

[philtay]

Thanks for the links. Where I'm having trouble is where it says

The adviser should have made it clear that PPI was optional (if this was the case).

Can the mortgage company insist that you take their product? Surely a court cannot uphold a claim on the basis of codes of practice (pre 2005). What legal basis can you take this to court?

regards
Phil

[alanalana]

Hello Philtay,

I am uncertain about the position as regards a Court upholding a complaint on a code of practice not being adhered to. I know your PPI is pre 2005 but there were rules in place not necessarily statutes at law but certainly rules.

The FOS would look at this but I am not sure about a fast result in Court.

I understand you will want a sure fire case but PPI issues are still all over the place depending on a lot of different circumstances:
Pre 2005 or Post 2005.
Bank regulated by FSA
or Broker covered by FLA or GISC
Credit Card or Loan or Mortgage etc

at the moment people on here are trying all ways to find solutions and are being held up at every hurdle by unhelpful financial institutions.

I have a bit more info for you but my best advice is to take time to search the threads to see if anyone else has this problem and gain information as and when you can.

If the seller was an insurance broker or some other seller, such as a car dealership selling PPI alongside finance agreements, then the sale of PPI would not have been regulated before January 2005. But you may still complain to the FOS about PPI sold before then if the complaint is about a claim - where the policy does not pay out when you think it should do.

In this case it is the underwriters - the insurance company deciding your claim – that you are complaining about and these companies will have been regulated.

You may even be able to claim that a policy sold before 31 January 2005 had been mis-sold if you can show that the terms of the policy contract were unfair – again it would be the underlying insurer that you would complain against..
The best advice is to call the FOS helpline on 0845 080 1800 to find out if you have a case.

I am afraid I do not believe there are cut and dried answers to every case at the moment

aa

[alanalana]

Hello philtay,

Just an afterthought to previous post.

If the sales person stated PPI was mandatory for you to get the loan but failed to check if the PPI would cover you or was suitable to your needs then it would be clearly mis-sold.
The PPI should have been able to cover your girlfriend for everything stated in the T & C.s and policy document.

Covering self employment, age, part time work or unemployed, pre existing medical conditions, and have given advice within the code of practice on length of the PPI, how it would cover her, You I believe would have a good case (but check with the site team and legal people) to claim mis-selling if you were told you have to have PPI but were not properly advised as to the level of cover etc.

hope this helps perhaps you could ask a member of site team/moderator to give a legal aspect to this.

aa