They weren't insuring you against anything. If the cover is what I think it is, they were insuring themselves against having to repossess your house and sell it for below the outstanding mortgage value.

Yes it is and assuming the loan ran full term my crude calculations suggest you will net about £2,200-£2,300.

There are all sorts of dodgy ways they operate. It's not been unheard of for them to use dodgy third party companies who raid you rubbish or hack your computer. It's not even unknown for them to try and bribe staff at the bank/credit card companies to get details for them. The best thing I can advise the OP if they call again is take the name of the individual and the company then ask them directly where they got your details from. If the answer isn't satisfactory report them both to the Ministry of Justice (their regulator) and the Information Commissioners Office which polices the Data Protection Act.

So that means you borrowed 89% of the purchase price? In that case I would guess it is as per my post above.

They have to send you an acknowledgement letter promptly and a final decision letter at a later date (usually within 8 weeks).

Sesame are the UK's largest IFA network. Basically, the IFA's (known as "appointed representatives") use Sesame's FCA authorisation to conduct business in exchange for a cut of their income. Sesame then take responsibility for their business, which includes the handling and, if appropriate, settling of complaints against firms who were network members at the time of the events complained about. If the advice or arranging of the policy was carried out by the IFA then it is right that the complaint goes to their network to deal with. The fact that the IFA has now passed it onto them suggests that he sold the policy. It would have nothing to do with the mortgage company who may not even be connected to the PPI provider. They may not even know that the OP had the PPI. I would say wait and see what Sesame come back with. Be aware that mortgage PPI is more difficult to obtain a successful outcome against than loan or credit card. Also bear in mind that complaints against IFAs are taken very personally. It's not like some bank complaints where the member of staff involved is just a sales clerk who won't even know about it and they'll roll over after a half hearted investigation. These guys are professional individuals, a complaint is a serious matter which they have to declare on future job applications and you can expect a serious fight over it.

When was the mortgage taken out and did you have a high (over 75%) loan to value? If yes and in the 90s/early 00s it is probably mortgage guarantee insurance. This was used on high LTV mortgages to protect the lender in the event that you default on the mortgage and they can't sell the property for enough to repay the outstanding debt. The lender would often make it a condition of the offer that you take out an appropriate policy to indemnify them. It's not really in fashion any longer but was very popular in the 90s.

You can claim on it sure, if you are ill or lose your job. If what you mean is can you complain about it then yes, but you need something to complain about. And them requiring you to take it in order to repay the mortgage in the event of your death isn't grounds for complaint. If you were told it was a condition when it wasn't then that's a different matter. But if it was then all they have to do is say legitimate exercise of commercial judgement and that's it. FOS would not normally consider such a matter either.

This used to be pretty common practice. There's nothing wrong with it either. They didn't want to be left with a house they may or may not be able to sell for the outstanding mortgage amount in the event of your death so they required you to take out insurance to cover this. It's what's known as a legitimate exercise of the lenders. Commercial judgement. It is not grounds for complaint unfortunately.

As regards the original question as well, to the OP, they have obviously given you the option to go with any insurer you want. You have chosen to go through them. They can only sell products from their own insurers. The fact that it could have been obtained cheaper elsewhere isn't grounds for complaint. All insurers have their own separate underwriting criteria. If you had shopped around you'd have got it cheaper but you didn't. But no you can't reclaim the difference.

Just to clear this one up as well, any lender will insist that buildings insurance is in place. The reason is obvious, the house is the security for their capital and they want to protect it. The lender is entitled to insist on any other insurances they see fit. This is a legitimate exercise of their commercial judgement. Life covert used to be fairly common. PPI not so much but it wasn't unknown. The issue is that (nowadays anyway) they are not supposed to insist that the insurance has to be through them. Back at the time in question this might well have been a different story

They're approaching this from the perspective of a litigation issue. When it should be looked at as a regulated complaint. Generally speaking there are no time limits unless it can be shown that you knew a long time (over 3 years) ago that you had grounds for complaint and had "sat" on the issue ever since.

Not sure about the other issues but complaining about pre- existing conditions only really works if the condition is ongoing and severe enough that you are likely to need to take significant amounts of time off due to it. Obviously you haven't said what the condition is, but it doesnt seem to be something which necessitates your taking long periods of time off work. Therefore there would be no detriment to you as a result. If you had a recurring condition which on multiple occasions required you to take long periods (generally over 30 days) off work then the complaint may well have been upheld as these wouldn't have been covered by the PPI. That was why the caller was asking you questions about it. And on this particular issue alone his response looks to be fair enough.

They wouldn't have supplied it (i.e underwritten it) but would have been the seller therefore the target for any complaint

Was pre-regulation so FOS and FSCS will not be able to help.FLA are about as much use as a chocolate fire guard.

It's not a case of making things difficult but they might want proof of residence before they will enter into correspondence. Having said which mainland Europe for the most part is not as high risk an area as many other countries with less developed financial systems.

The above is the correct answer. You don't appear to have any real grounds for complaint about the sale of the policy. So your best bet is to write in asking for a refund from 2005 onwards. Might not do to be too aggressive about it though, for the reasons specified by the above poster.

The other thing is you need to check with the Halifax whether the PPI and life cover were genuinely a condition of the mortgage off. Sometimes it is truly the case (not so much PPI but it used to be quite common with life cover). The life cover is to ensure they get their money back in the event of your death during the mortgage term. A lot if companies would insist on this and that it was assigned to them. Employer death benefits aren't usually considered acceptable for the very reason that occurred in your case, people can and do switch employer or go self employed in which case the benefit would be lost.

They wouldn't. You need to complain to the independent adviser.

1) No, it's nothing to do with them and they won't do anything about it, If you want to report it to anyone then the Information Commissioner's Office would be the appropriate party. Won't benefit your PPI complaint though. 2) No, it's a specific Final Decision Letter detailing why they don't think your complaint is valid. If you still think it is then by all means go back to them and state why but don't leave it too long as the clock for your FOS rights is already ticking. 3) Not if you want to be taken seriously. By all means go back to them, but it needs to be specific to your complaint and aimed at rebutting the reasons they provided in their final decision letters. Using templates which are generic and have no specific relevance to your case will get nowhere. Pointing out that this credit agreement is someone else's and asking for a copy of your own may be a good start (though the credit agreement isn't conclusive either way with credit card PPI).

Lol

It is true that banks (or building societies as Nationwide is) don't always do things properly. But speaking from personal experience, the whole "banks conspired with the FBI and Elvis to shoot John Lennon" thing is inaccurate. Banks cock things up regularly but they are cock ups and deficient processes. Not some kind of deep rooted conspiracy to con people and rip them off the way a lot of people believe. Nationwide was not really one of the worst culprits in the PPI scandal and has earned a reputation for handling complaints fairly. Last set of data I saw put the FOS uphold rate on their cases at about 12%. As opposed to an average of 81%. The OP's OH is likely to get a fair outcome from them and if he is rejected it will likely be because be genuinely doesn't have a case As regards the record keeping thing to explain it as simply as I can, the Bank has to review the sale. This includes stuff like eligibility and (if the sale was advised) suitability. Hence if they don't have the records they are going to have to try and get the info from somewhere. Which is probably why they have asked the OP's other half for it. If he doesn't answer then they can't assess these elements and therefore will assume that the sale was compliant. As per the above, FOS accepts that on the whole their sales process was compliant. The OP's job is to show that on this occasion it wasnt. Therefore, not to provide the info requested is only likely to harm their case. Especially if they have good answers that may support their case.

This is the point. Welcome has gone bust. Kaput. It doesn't exist as a company anymore. It was deregistred with companies house in June 2011. Therefore it cannot meet its own liabilities, which is why the FSCS is dealing with its PPI complaints. It's not a case of the FSCS being "liable". It's a case of them dealing with the matter as Welcome no longer exists. If the information in the opening post is accurate then the FSCS wouldn't be able to consider the complaint as it is pre- 2005. Therefore, the OP would be totally stuffed as he/she wouldn have nobody to complain to let alone get a decision letter. Hence my reason for querying it.

And I'm not sure how many ways I can say this (so this will also be my final attempt). However you want to dress it up, the simple fact is that the OP did not pay for the PPI. Therefore he/ she is not entitled to a refund of the money that they did not pay. Assuming what I have said above regarding the FSCS to be true then the complaint has not been investigated by the lender but by an impartial statutory compensation scheme. They have no motive to be unfair about it. If they have not paid the money to the OP if is because he/she is not entitled to it. Let's just wait and see hey. Nice debating with you.

As another point, there's something about this case that doesn't stack up. Welcome Finance are in default and their PPI complaints are being dealt with by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. They would have issued the response. However, the OP has stated that the loan was taken in 2003. If this is the case the. It was pre regulation and hence would not be eligible for FSCS consideration.