Very appreciative of the help and advise you've provided thus far.

Hi harry

 

............................................................................................

 

Others will be looking at this thread and will advise on your Life Insurance query.

 

ims

Hope so.

Erm yes I think you are.

 

Life insurance provides benefits on death to pay off the mortgage.

 

PPI is a different thing

 

ims

I do see what you mean and admit to being unclear, previously.

So, it's only "Personal Protection Insurance" (covering redundancy, sickness or other inability to pay) that we can reclaim for if mis-sold.

The clause I referred to does, though, beg the question "why was I obliged to take out a further life insurance policy through NatWest Insurance Services (from which I assume they turn a profit) when I already had ample life insurance cover - the policy documents for which were even already lodged with NatWest?".

Also, am I correct in thinking that paying into more than one life insurance policy is a waste of time as only the "first" is obliged to pay out - or is that an "Urban Myth" do you know?

Many thanks for your continued interest, ims.

Hi harry

 

What you posted was a letter of offer and there is no mention of ppi on it. I think the protection you mention relates, at first sight, to the life insurance policy you handed over to them.

 

The only way to be 100% sure would be to SAR them (although you could just phone them in the first instance and ask)

 

With only the mortgage offer document it is difficult to be sure. It has not been unknown for these things to be added without the customer's knowledge though.

 

ims

Thanks again, ims.

I've just found the "TERMS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO MORTGAGE LOANS" document that was provided with the uploaded "offer" that I had to sign and return to NatWest.

I could scan those "TERMS" (but that's a proper pain).

Instead, in the first instance, I've re-typed "Clause 22" as my mortgage was a "Fixed Interest" one and it seems to apply:

Clause 22: "In the case of a Fixed Interest Rate loan the Endowment with Profits or a Mortgage Protection Life Policy is to be taken through National Westminster Bank Insurance Services Limited, which should have a minimum death benefit of the value of the loan, unless otherwise agreed in writing".

Am I clutching at straws, here, do ya fink?

PS.

What does the phrase:

"Mortgage Protection - £40,000.00"

refer to?

Could a PPI have been "incorporated" without my knowledge?

Hi harry

 

The Mortgage Offer document you've posted doesn't include any PPI. The Life Insurance mentioned is one that you already held and that you said you handed them the policy/documents for.

 

ims

Thanks ims.

Can I cross that one off my list, save myself the £10 SAR fee and concentrate my efforts on the other loans I had, then?

Here's the Mortgage Offer for the £40k second mortgage in PDF format.

Thanks for looking.

Mortgage_Offer_PDF-edited.pdf

Hi harry

 

Unfortunately the image is too small to read.

 

Can you post it up as a PDF file

 

 

Thanks

 

ims

Hi,

Am doing that at the moment.

Please could you tell me if there is any way to remove the jpeg image I already uploaded?

I've just dug out a document pertaining to my £40k second mortgage.

When I took out the first mortgage, I seem to recall the bank offering me life insurance but, as I already had a life insurance policy that would pay out circa £500k they accepted that instead, as long as I passed the policy document to them (which I did).

Does the attached offer look like PPI was included?

Hi harry

 

To be absolutely sure I think you would have to send a Subject Access Request to each lender you list. Each one will cost £10 and will yield copies of agreements and statements (amongst a lot of other stuff too).

 

From this information it will be possible to determine which ones had ppi and which ones didn't.

 

Self employment is one of the criteria for mis-selling.

 

Take a look at the PDFs on the fos website for the guidance notes.

 

Hope this helps

 

ims

Thanks for the reply.

I had hoped that, in light of the banks' apparent (albeit reluctant) recent acknowledgment that some PPI's may have been "mis-sold" that all I might have to do is pop a letter in the post asking them if I had been sold PPI (overtly or covertly) and that, if I had, could I please have my money back?

Why are they allowed to make it so difficult?

Why is the onus of proof always resting with the injured party?

It's really not good enough, in a "modern" and "just" society, is it?

Thanks again for taking the time to offer your advice.

Harry.

Please could someone offer me some advice on reclaiming PPI charges?

In the past, I've had a mortgage £200k, a second mortgage for £40k - both with NatWest.

Also, a £60k secured loan from a subsidiary of Lloyds and a £15k unsecured loan from Barclaycard (not a credit card, a loan).

As I have since paid them all off, I'm having the devil's own job trying to find paperwork regarding them all.

I'm guessing that some, at least, of them had PPI included (either knowingly or otherwise to me).

How can I go about finding out if I was sold PPI?

As I was self-employed throughout the loan periods, I'm pretty sure PPI would not have covered me if I'd "fallen out of work".

Any help would be really great. Thanks.

You don't have to give your own address, just a 'contact' address, and so to avoid any potential problems I would use one of your UK offspring's addresses.

Thanks.

Will take your advice on that.

Harry.

Thanks, Contador.

I'll crack on then.

If they refuse on the grounds of my domicile, I'll get one of the offspring, based in the UK to put the request in.

Will report back ASAP.

Harry.

Harry

 

Sorry, Enaid asked me to respond but it had slipped my mind...........

Good luck!...........

Thanks for that Contador.

Sorry I've not gotten back to you before now ("Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans").

I really appreciate your guidance and intend to "tweak" the draft a little - to see just how much information I'm able to elicit from them.

Promise to let all you guys know how I get on and what my next move will be, in due course.

One question, though.......

WHO is allowed to make a request?

The reason I ask this is two-fold.

1) By accepting requests on-line, with the applicant only required to enter an email address (as opposed to a "true" address) are they not opening themselves to all sorts of requests from all sorts of quarters? Surely they could not reply to them all (especially in these most austere of times) so, if so, the logical conclusion must be that email requests (and possibly/probably even postal requests) are filtered to, rightly, sort the genuine from the misguided, belligerent, misdirected or plain nonsensical (insert your own filter-criteria) Which makes me wonder how seriously will they "choose" to take my enquiry and equally, how seriously I should take my own on-line application being treated "seriously".

2) Although born and bred on the UK Mainland I reside and am now considered a resident of the British Isles but am also considered both a UK resident and a non-UK resident (as it suits them) and an EU citizen and a non-EU citizen (as it suits them), am I, therefore, qualified to submit a FOI request? If so, who is and who isn't? Can Colonel Gaddafi submit a FOI request, for instance (being currently bored with time on his hands, I'd imagine)? Whatever, I can get around it, by proxy, if necessary but I would like to know, so as not to need to do that, if possible.:???:

Thanks for your help, thus far.

Hello there. Yes, I believe a life assurance company can use the surrender value to pay premiums, usually in order to keep the life cover going. But you say they told you it was Paid Up. Do you have that in writing?

 

My best, HB

Hi Honeybee,

Thanks for taking the care to respond.

Yes, I have it verified in August of 2009 that the Policy is in a "Paid Up" status but am further informed that I can reinstate the Policy within 13 months, provided I repay all missing premiums. I was also advised that what that all means is that, "because you're not paying in, you don't have any Life-Cover as such, but you have a monetary value in there....that you can claim at any time".

In March, 2010 I received another communication stating that "the plan has now been surrendered" (so much for the 13 months grace period).

When I queried this and asked for my "surrender value" I was only then informed that it had none as the monies referred to earlier had been used to continue paying into (what I had previously been advised was a Paid-Up") the Plan.

Any ideas on my course of action, at all?

Thanks again,

Harry P.

Just came back to review this and see that "Google Search" have already been and had a look.

Does Google track EVERY post on EVERY bulletin board?

Makes Big Brother (George Orwell's - not Channel 4's) look like an amateur setup.

Browned-off with being treated like a pawn/victim.

Someone should tell Google et al that "with great power comes great responsibility".

Never read your daughter's diary, is my motto.

Hi,

I need some advice, please.

Long story short:

Met a girl and fell in love.

Married in 1987. Was blessed with a child almost a year to the day, later.

Decided we needed some life insurance.

Took out a policy (not the cheapest).

Divorced 18 years later but kept policy on.

Lost my job in 2006 and struggled on with policy.

Unable to meet payments anymore, late 2009.

Was contacted by Company and when I explained I couldn't afford it any more, I was informed that they would put it "on-hold" for up to 12 months and that it was now (then) considered to be "paid up". There was a surrender value of some £2,500 that I could leave where it was or claim it whenever I wanted.

I left it where it was (so that I wouldn't be tempted to fritter it away). I also hoped to obtain work and restart the policy which I was informed I could do, provided I left the cash in there but that I would not be able to, if I "cashed it in".

A few months later, I was contacted again and informed that the policy had now "lapsed" as my fund was exhausted.

Seems that, contrary to my understanding, they had continued drawing the monthly payments from the surrender value until that was exhausted.

Can they do that? (despite not having made it clear that that was their intention - in fact, when I asked if I could leave the surrender value with them until a later date, they had said "yes").

I can't believe that, having been informed of my (and my family's) dire financial straits and despite them already having been paid c£500 per month for over 20 years, they still "milked" me for the last drop.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

1) The FoI request was made by a colleague...............................Good for him (and us).

 

But it would be interesting at least to know what proportion of the 22,191 claiming financial difficulty actually were recognised as such by the banks................Agreed, very interesting!

I would suggest you make one yourself...............................I have decided to. Knowledge is power.

 

In making an FoI request it is important to consider the wording of your request carefully as the FSA will only release the information you specifically request.........................See below:

__________________

Would it be at all possible to be provide me a draft (even a rough one) of the original letter so that I can amend/update it and send it off? You can PM it to me if you prefer and I am happy to either PM my proposed request or post it on the board as you prefer. I am also more than happy to provide you with a draft for approval, prior to forwarding it.

Cheers.

Harry P.

Strange.

When I click on the link you kindly provided ending: ....fsa-gov-uk pages Doing......etc (I'm not allowed to post a full link, yet), I get the following:

404 Error:

File not found The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

Please try the following:

• If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
  
• Open the ............. home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
  
• Click the Back button to try another link
  
• Or use the search facility
  

However, searching for it as you suggested has resulted in my now having the document, so thanks for that.

Harry

Hi,

That link to the FSA's definition of hardship is broken/moved.

Would you happen to know the Document Title at all, so that I might track it down?

Cheers.

Hapless Harry.

Nice one!!

I'm off down the shops for a new ink cartridge (for my fountain pen - not my laser printer - lol).

Will get back to you later.

Thanks, thanks and thrice thanks.

Harry P

Hello enaid and thanks for your input on this matter, which is pretty much what I was after.

A few of the points it rasies are extremely interesting:

1) Someone (the edited copy does not reveal who, but no matter) did indeed request information based upon the FOI Act "right to know" of the FSA, to which they complied. I hadn't thought of taking that particular route, but it is probably as good as any.

2) Are they saying that of 22,191 claimants under the "Financial Hardship/Difficulty" waiver only 157 were deemed to qualify? If so, I cannot believe that only 0.7 (that is less than three-quarters of one percent) of such claimants would be deemed to qualify. And judged to qualify by which "firms in conjunction with their own criteria for accepting financial difficulty"? And whose "own criteria" - the "firms'" or the banks'? And who paid these "firms"? The banks? If so, might these "firms" not be in risk of undue influence of their paymasters?

Whether the 157 figure is a total or a representative mix, I would find it unacceptable that less than two-thirds of them had been offered a settlement. After all, it has already been determined that they all DID qualify under the Hardship waiver. For example - If 157 people are on a sinking ship and the quartermaster is in possession of 157 life-jackets, and all 157 people have requested a life-jacket, when would it ever be deemed acceptable for said quartermaster to dispense only 101 of those life-jackets?

3) The timing of the communication provided is a while ago now. Please could you tell me whether or not I or A N Other could put in another request and have more up to date figures provided. I am thinking of the specific time between the waiver date (June 2007) and the last Supreme Court ruling, in favour of the Banks. Also, is that information provided freely or is there a charge, do you know?

Thanks so much for the information. It's really appreciated.

If they were to just confirm what data they hold, they would still have to trawl your data to find it then write it all down in a letter It is easier to just print off what is already there. Got ya. Makes sense.

 

With your SAR, they would write back and ask for the tenner before they would progress your SAR Good. I ain't in no hurry. They been robbing me for years and I learned to live without that which they purloined, so far - getting it back (if I do) will be like a bonus. But if they spend more than a tenner on staff time replying to me to ask for the tenner, then it's just further evidence as to their mealy-mouthed behaviour. Might not make me look good, but it sure does make them look bad (and inept as well as inefficient).

 

As to getting the info you require-ain't got a clue

As regards the third point. I'm sure that the data must exist somewhere. Guess I'll have to cast my fly in other waters and see if I get a bite.

Just such a shame that, at the moment, we don't know of a mechanism that would require the banks to declare how much they have repaid and to what number of claimants. Not interested in breakdown figures of how much to whoever, simply the overall picture. As I said, if they settled with some but not others on the hardship basis then questions regarding why so would appear valid and might open another door for claimants.

They have only "won" when we give up. So long as we don't give up, they will never have won.

Thanks for your continued patience, Silverfox.

Thanks Silverfox,

I really appreciate you taking the time to respond and value your advice.

I have a few more questions, based upon your reply (not questioning your knowledge - just seeking clarification/expansion).

Any company that you have a dealing with have a duty to comply with a SAR. They don't have to produce the actual data, just to inform you of the data they hold. It is however easier to produce the actual data. How is that easier than simply confirming the data that they hold?

 

The £10 fee is the maximum they can demand. If you made a request and didn't enclose the fee, they won't be obliged to begin the collation of documents until such time they do receive it. All you would be doing by not sending the fee is to delay things. But would they be obliged to tell me that, or could they simply ignore my request and play upon my ignorance (were I not to know of the fee and were it not for the fact that I'm a bit of a Jack Russel when it comes to dealing with officious folk)?

 

As to your previous point. Although the taxpayer do own xx% of the shares, they are still a bank and not a public body so no FOI to them

The last point is a shame and I'll explain where I'm coming from.

I applied for a refund of "unfair" bank charges a year or so ago. Communications passed back and forth between us which I consider to have been a "delaying-tactic" on the part of the bank, pending the Supreme Court's decision. I don't consider that they met what was, at least then, their obligations under the hardship clause as laid down by a previous court, through their tactics. Once the Supreme Court found in the banks' favour and the OFT dropped it, the bank feels it is all done-and-dusted........

.............But.........I'd like to know how many claimants they DID settle with during the period that they denied my claim in order to show that - as they were settling other cases, they should have properly settled mine, too. If my argument holds water then the same would surely apply to other cases that were denied under the hardship rule (providing such meet its criteria - which mine indisputably did/does), so may well open up a whole new angle of attack for those of us that were denied justice through the banks' delaying tactics. This would probably be very many people, indeed.

How else might I find that information, do you know?

Much obliged.

Harry P

Hi again,

I'm presuming that no-one is able to answer the previous question for me regarding the likelihood or not of succeeding with a Freedom of Information request of Lloyds Bank.

Is someone able to tell me whether or not an Insurance/Assurance Company is obliged to comply with a Subject Access Request? Reason being that I believe I have been "ripped-off" by a certain company with whom I had Life-Cover for over 20 years.

Also, I'm informed that the customary £10 that is paid to a bank or CC company is not necessarily obligatory, but is the highest amount that can be charged and has, ipso facto, become the "generally accepted" figure (it WOULD be the highest, when it's to the Banks' favour, now wouldn't it?).

If I submit a SAR without including the aforementioned £10 fee, what is likely to happen? Can my entire request simply be ignored or must the respondent at least inform me of its refusal until such fee has been paid?

Thanks to everyone who takes the time to read this.

Thanks again.

Very interesting read and seemingly designed to create as tangled a web of vagueness and ambiguity regarding a public body's responsibiilties and limitations as is humanly possible (why am I not surprised?).

I'm seeking general information that would not be covered by a SAR of Lloyds Banking Group.

Am I correct (I bet, for these purposes, I'm not) in thinking that Lloyds are now, at least part, owned by you and me via our erstwhile Government because, if so, are they ergo subject to FOI requests as would A N Other public body?

Regards,

HP