Recording proves PPI was optional

**landy_alert** · 15th July 2009 17:28

Hi everyone

I have been trying to get PPI icon

back on a mortgage icon

which is now repaid and which I believe was mis-sold.

I had believed we were encouraged to take out the 'optional' PPI as our application would be looked upon more favourably if we did.

Despite the paperwork referring to the optional nature of the PPI we were never shown or provided with any documentation showing the cost of the mortgage icon

without the PPI.

I have now heard from the broker of the mortgage who denies the mis-selling and to back this up has sent us a recording of the telephone conversation in which we were told the PPI was optional, that approval for the loan was not conditional on our purchasing the PPI and that we were sent, at the time of taking out the mortgage, a Breakdown icon

of the costs involved both with and without the PPI attached in order for us to make an informed decision.

Now, I admit that the recording is irrefutable proof that they explained we were under no obligation to take out the PPI, but the broker clearly states we will be sent this breakdown before we sign the agreement.

I have all our original paperwork for this mortgage and there is nothing showing the costs of the loan with and without the PPI. If we had been sent this, not only would I have kept it, but I cannot believe that we would have chosen to add several thousand pounds in the form of an upfront single premium PPI to the cost of our borrowing.

This mortgage was rushed through as we had arrears on our first mortgage and desperately needed to clear this. I firmly believe that despite saying we would be sent this breakdown of costs it was never sent and that instead we received the loan agreement which we duly signed and returned as a matter of urgency.

I know this is our fault - we were naive and desperate to get our financial situation sorted out, but I'm just wondering whether the existence of this recording totally blows any chance I have of proving the PPI was mis-sold out of the water?

Has anyone managed to prove mis-selling in a similar case where a recording had been kept?

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated as always, thank you

Regards,

Landy x

**alanalana** · 15th July 2009 21:32

The only thing I can suggest on your post is seek advice from the fos icon

. I still believe IMO that you should try and get your money back PPI icon

was mis-sold massively. You may still be in with a shout.

Do you not have any other reasons for the mis-selling ie single premium, pre-existing medical conditions, part time employment, retired, on benefits, retired etc etc ?

PPI - Some Notes for Claimants..

aa

**pompeyfaith** · 15th July 2009 21:42

Was the recording in an understandable manner was the person speaking at a speed it could be understood.

The fos icon

will take that into consideration.

PF

**landy_alert** · 15th July 2009 22:04

Hi aa and PF

My heroes as usual have come to my rescue with some good advice - thank you!

It was a single premium policy and although we were not retired or benefits or had any pre-existing medical conditions, we did have existing cover in the form of some kind of policy with Scottish Widows - critical illness cover I believe (as well as mortgage icon

and business cover for our first mortgage icon

) - not sure if the fact that they never asked about cover we already had makes any difference?

As for the speed at which the sales person was talking, I hadn't really thought about that - I'll have another listen and report back.

Cheers guys!

Regards,

Landy x

**pompeyfaith** · 16th July 2009 00:01

hiya landy u are very welcome jurt remember there are more than one mis-selling icon

reasons that can be used regards PF

**landy_alert** · 16th July 2009 00:23

Thanks PF - really appreciate your help

**landy_alert** · 31st July 2009 18:29

Hi everyone

Just updating this thread -

Have sent off further 'prove it' letter to Norton putting them to strict proof that they really did send us a Breakdown icon

of the costs with and without the PPI icon

before we signed the agreement. As I understand it, the onus is on them to prove this. If they had, I am certain we would not have opted to take out the PPI as the cost would have proved prohibitive, particularly as it only covered the first 3 years of a 25 year mortgage icon

!

My fear is they could now concoct something and say this is what they sent. Is the onus still on them to prove we actually received it though?

The sales persons spiel was a bit garbled and OH is a little hard of hearing so I doubt whether he understood all that was said - although I s'pose the latter point is not their fault.

Will update further when I get a response.

Thanks again for all your help!

Regards,

Landy x

**pompeyfaith** · 31st July 2009 21:56

Indeed if that is what they say then its for them to prove and if they did not use RM SD or RECORDED i can see how they can prove it.

Regards

PF

**landy_alert** · 31st July 2009 22:27

Originally Posted by pompeyfaith

Indeed if that is what they say then its for them to prove and if they did not use RM SD or RECORDED i can see how they can prove it.

Regards

PF

Hi PF

Many thanks - you've cheered me up by saying that.....I have been busy convincing myself all day that I'm on a losing battle with this one, but I won't give up just yet then!

Regards,

Landy x

**pompeyfaith** · 31st July 2009 22:59

Good Heavens no never give up

Rest assured the day will come when they will fall

You are doing a swell job landy in your endeavours and giving all us CAGGERS including me hope.

Regards

PF

**landy_alert** · 1st August 2009 12:13

Thank you PF

It's people like you and aa who keep me going with all this - you are my PPI icon

heroes

Regards,

Landy x

Thread: Recording proves PPI was optional

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional

Re: Recording proves PPI was optional