missold [told compulsory] all manner of mortgage insurances in 1994 - can i reclaim them?

[Hortz]

The world would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything.

 

My honest opinion is that, assuming the insurances really were a condition of the offer, Lulilu is on a loser. All they have to do is say "legitimate exercise of our commercial judgement". In those circumstances FOS can't even consider it. The bank did what they thought was necessary to protect their own interests. Lulilu was free to look elsewhere if he/ she didn't like it.

[lulilu]

Thanks to Horrtz and dx for this. Its very much appreciated that you take the time to help me.

 

I will dwell on this matter for a while.

 

However my gut reaction is that Hortz is wrong;

what the mortgage company says, and I paraphrase, is that I knew the products I signed up to were rubbish for me.

I have to say this is perverse to say the least

- why would anyone buy anything that can't do the job its designed to do and which I was promised it would do.

 

Can Hortz give me an answer to this.

 

On the other hand Hortz is right as I have to prove my case.

 

In the absence of anything else I've said what do people think ?

 

Just believe me I'm not afraid to take on these people but I need to know the certainty I have of success.

 

dx tells me, as his personal opinion, that I have a good chance of getting the lot back.

Yet as I have many deep scars from the banks and their lawyers.

Scars that destroyed my marriage, my home and took me to ther veritable edge of suicide.

 

I know its a big ask but can someone give me a bit more advice on this.

 

In this respect I particularly ask Hortz to give his opinion based on statute and legal authority.

 

Can you, Hortz, or anyone else do this ?

[dx100uk]

I think it would help us to see the fob off letter

 

and what you initially and since have sent too:

 

set your default scan page size to A4 less than 300DPI [150 will do]

scan the required letters/agreements/sheets - as a picture[jpg] file

don't forget you can use a mobile phone or a digital camera too!!

'

BUT......

ENSURE: remove all pers info inc. barcodes etc using paint program

but leave all monetary figures and dates.

*********************************************************

{DO NOT USE A BIRO OR PEN OR USE SEE THRU TAPE OR LABELS]

try www.pdfescape.com TO BLANK STUFF,

*************************************************************

or

DO IT IN MSPAINT.EXE or any photo editing program

goto one of the many free online pdf converter websites ...

http://freejpgtopdf.com/

..

if you have multiple scans/pics

put them in a word doc FIRST and convert that to PDF

or use www.pdfmerge.com

 

convert existing PC files to PDF [office has an installable print to PDF option]

..

 

it would be better to upload a multipage pdf if

you have many images too rather than many single pdfs

.

or if you have PDF as an installed printer drive use that

or use word and save as pdf

try and logically name your file so people know what it is.

though dont use full bank names or CAG in the title

i'e Default notice dd-mm-yyyy TSB

.

open a new msg box here

hit go advanced below the msg box

hit manage attachments below that box

hit the add files button on the top right

hit select files, navigate to your file on your pc

hit upload files

.

dx

[lulilu]

Thanks for this. Yes I will send you stuff when I can scan it. Would it be ok to send you the info as a pdf set to 150 dpi.

[dx100uk]

follow the guide

post it up o this thread

 

dx

[Hortz]

Hi Lulilu

 

I missed the part where you said you had already made a complaint if I'm honest. I echo the advice above. If you can then post up their decision letter so we can see what to make of it. Makes it so much easier to give an informed opinion.

 

The problem you have is that you have asked for an opinion based on statute and legal authority, but this is not really a legal matter. It is a complaint against a firm which you believe to have treated you unfairly. As per my earlier post if you go to court you are going to be asked what law you think has been breached and what proof you have. How would you answer that?

 

FOS might be a better option if it is within their jurisdiction from so long ago as they consider not only law but what they consider to be "fair" (basically means they can make it up as they go along with no recourse for the bank).

 

However, the upshot of it is this. The insurances, if they were insisted on, were insisted on to protect the lender's interest. They don't want to risk your house burning down and you not being able to pay off the loan. Likewise they don't want to risk you passing away and them being left with a house they may not be able to sell for its market value. Hence the insistence on buildings and life cover.

 

If you think I am wrong then there's not much I can do about that. However, I can 100% assure you that FOS has the right to (and generally will) refuse to consider a complaint regarding a legitimate exercise of commercial judgement. If you don't believe me I can only suggest you call them and ask. Your problem is that the issues you have raised would appear to fall into this category.

 

If you really were told you had to take out contents cover you might be able to make a complaint stick about this ( though proving it would be pretty difficult). This might be considered unreasonable since the lender has no insurance interest in you taking out such a policy (the loan is not secured on your possessions but the home itself). But I think you're going to struggle with anything else.

 

Don't forget also the complaint is being looked at cold 20 years on by someone who was not remotely involved in the events being complained about. It's possible that even they may not get the thought process behind the original demand that you take out the insurances. But that doesn't make it wrong.

 

Post the decision letter and I will see what I can do.

[dx100uk]

as far as I remember, the original PPI 'complaint' was not interested in the 'background' but solely on the fact that PPI was portrayed as 'compulsory'.

 

the authorities deemed it was unfair under whatever circumstances, then the full investigation was done.

 

bit like this situation.

 

pers I don't think it matters 'what' rules or T&C's are behind it.

 

if the OP was told they were compulsory, end off argument.

 

my thoughts only.

 

dx

[Hortz]

That may have been one of the early issues which kicked off the whole fiasco.

 

However, the reasons it was deemed to be a problem were:

 

1) PPI and whether it was taken did not form any part of lenders credit approval process and yet people were being told that it did.

If PPI had formed part of the credit approval process the whole thing would never have been as big as it is now.

 

2) Nowadays it is generally agreed under the provisions of the lending code (I think there might be something in the banking conduct of business rules as well)

that lenders will not force customers to buy insurance products from them as a condition of granting credit.

That hasn't always been the case though and ten years ago they may have been free to do so if they wanted.

 

Even now they are perfectly free to insist in suitable insurance cover being taken if that's what they want, just not that it has to be with them.

However, most don't.

You can only judge a complaint against the standards and expectations in place at the time (if I was being cynical I would say unless your name is FOS but anyway...)

 

The lending code only applies to CCA regulated unsecured lending anyway and not to mortgages.

It's always been accepted that banks are entitled to insist on suitable insurance cover being taken to cover mortgage debt.

Buildings cover is universal, however, life cover and even less commonly PPI can be insisted on as well.

One of the reasons mortgage PPI is much harder to win Mis- sale on.

 

Bottom line if the OP was told the insurance was a condition of the offer and it was, whatever type of insurance it is, this is not grounds for complaint.

If the OP didn't like the terms of the offer he/she was free to look elsewhere.

 

In this instance the OP was told that the choice was there to purchase it from any suitable provider and chose to use the lender out of convenience.

So there isn't even the argument about being forced to use them for it.

[Hortz]

To clarify a bit further, there are two possible meanings to the cover being "compulsory". The first one is legally compulsory, which it is not and nobody should be telling the OP otherwise. The second meaning is that it is compulsory as a condition of them agreeing to lend the OP the money. If this is the case then that is their own commercial decision and there is no comeback to it.

[dx100uk]

they cannot be judge and jury hortz.

 

a commercial 'decision' to make a punter take insurances to protect the creditors interests

is wrong.

 

there are lots of people that need help.

 

my time is being taken up replying to you on various threads come onto

debating various issues of if/if not advise is correct.

 

quite honestly as I said when you cameback after 6yrs of being away.

 

if you have nothing to give the forum and its users in helping

then p'haps cag is not for you.

 

it is better to TRY rather than give up no harm in asking the creditors.

 

op please post your docs requested earlier up please

 

dx

[Hortz]

No it's not wrong. they're a business not a charity. they're entitled to offer to lend (or not) on whatever terms they see fit. Like I said the first time if the OP doesn't like the terms then there are plenty of other lenders.

 

If someone's been genuinely wronged and has a good case I'll be the first to tell them and advise them on how to put it. But I've got no interest in tubthumping, banging the drum, giving false hope or encouraging people to make complaints that are patently unjustified (not necessarily referring to the OP in this thread here) just on the off chance and because I don't like banks.

 

If open and honest opinions are not welcome here and it is a forum where people are simply expected to toe the "banks are the root of all evil and everyone who complains is automatically due a refund" line then no maybe it's not. I'm out for now may pop back when the OP has scanned up the documents.

[lulilu]

To be honest my inclination is to accept what dx says rather than Hortz; I asked Hortz to quote statute and legal authorities. He seems unable or unwilling to do so. dx on the other hand when I quoted the mortgage company telling me to get lost cos s5 of the Limitation Act applies dx replies with s32.

Moreover Horrtz, as it seems to me, makes out a case for the morality of people like me claiming refunds on unfair practises. This is fine, of sorts, but its also the argument used by banks to prevent all manner claims involving of mis-selling such as penaly charges and the like. I can assure Hortz the practises of the banks destroyed my marriage, my family and just about brought me to the edge of suicide. I can also assure Hortz that I am no mood to listen to tales of morality. What I am interested in is what does the law say. Thats it. Nothing else. So please Hortz tell me what you consider to be the law.

I am perfectly well aware, as Hortz has illustrated, and I thank him for this, that I am the claimant and I must prove my case. Essentially as I see things I must prove that the mortgage company told me as a fact when they knew or believed that the information they gave was false. In the absence of documentary evidence I find this difficult. Can anyone give me advice about this.

I have therefore decided to take a shortcut – I do not find it easy to mug up on the law and PPI but a CMC website says that IF the entire cost of the PPI was not explained to me and the mortgage company only quoted the cost of the loan with the PPI attached then the insurance package was mis-sold.

If what the CMC says is true the attached part of a mortgage statement from the time shows I was indeed sold not only the PPI but the entire insurance package. The original I have will contain the finger prints of staff at the mortgage company who sent this to me. Anyone got any views about this. I am particularly interested in the views of Hortz. So please Hortz can you quote me statute and legal authorities.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46690[/ATTACH]

[dx100uk]

thank you.

 

any poster here will in the fullness of time

find out if they have a case or not

 

by rejecting the mere speculation letters that often are returned

in order to make them give up

 

we at cag do not give up.

 

we question and question again.

 

if / if not a claim is valid will come out in the wash

 

speculation however valid before we reach this point helps no-one.

 

let the companies defend themselves

then help counter.

 

if we lose we lose

but atleast we didn't put the punter off before we gave it our best shot.

 

dx

[dx100uk]

ouch 30% was insurances.

 

dx

[lulilu]

Thanks for these replies.

 

I can't seem to upload the final response letter from the solicitors. I've tried to do exactly the same as I did to post the mortgage statement but this time no go.

 

I will have another go later on

[lulilu]

What a strange thing - the letter is attached !

[dx100uk]

that letter IMHO is merely a 'speculative letter'

filled with, to be honest, a whole load of unneccessary mumbo jumbo designed to put you off.

can i assume you stated 'somewhere' that you were told by the advisor in a closed room that you MUST have them?

hence the no option but not to purchase rubuttal?

and the bit about not advised there were alternates cheaper avaiable

like the comment they were not

allowed by their insurers to even tell you there WERE alternate products you 'could' have looked at!

and ofcourse the usual final fob-off...

it was prior to 2005, so tough luck, we were not regulated, so could do what we liked!

and that the documents they have provided, are not actualy your but we will rely upon

them should you complain further.

they could have come from anywhere, doesn't Prove they WERE the ones actually in forceat the time

nor that they are even documents EVER used in that time, they are 'representative'...yes mate.

and the bit about time barring, nope dont cut it, the 6yrs runs from when 'you' realised the 'mistake'.

[lulilu]

Thanks once again dx. What Hortz said put me off a bit but now feeling better.

 

Nevertheless I don't feel that I have the necessary proof to successfully bring a claim in the county court.

 

When this mortgage company (above) refused to pay out on the PPI because I was self-employed I went elsewhere to a 2nd mortgage company.

I attach their Offer of a Mortgage plus the general conditions in the small print on the reverse.

 

As you can see they state explicitly that a condition of the mortgage is that I must have adequate buildings/contents and life insurances.

 

The general conditions state that I was free to arrange this insurance wherever I liked.

At the time this 2nd mortgage company told me their products were the best on the market at the best price.

They also told me they would not look favourably upon my mortgage application if I chose to go elsewhere.

They also told me their products were so superior to anyone elses that they woul dbe bound to reject my going to any other insurer. So I agreed.

 

s5(2) and s6 I don't understand.

 

They also told me see the clause 10 and 13 of the of the General Conditions that I must have life insurance while the beneificiary must be the mortgage company,

see immediately following s6 of the Offer of Mortgage.

 

At the top of the page of these General Conditions (not shown on this scan) I am told to discuss the matter with my solicitor. I did this and he said they were pretty standard terms and conditions and everyone else would offer more or less the same. So off I went to the 2nd mortgage company.

Edited October 1, 2013 by lulilu
attachment in the wrong place also need 2 attachments

[lulilu]

I don't seem to have the hang of sending attachments.

 

Here is the Offer of Mortgage[ATTACH=CONFIG]46695[/ATTACH]

[lulilu]

Here is the offer of mortgage including insurance. Hopefully its now attached. If not I don't know what to do.

 

I would appreciate Hortz's views

 

 

 

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]46699[/ATTACH]

Edited October 1, 2013 by ims21

[dx100uk]

I would never recommend court on this , don't think I've said this

however I think you need to counter the fob off letter.

 

both of those document do not directly say you must have anything other than buildings ins.

the one above [1st mort?] says you must take out what they recommend for the discount period only.

 

the 2nd mortgage one [general ] says: if cover...then YOU have requested the society to insure the property.

not you MUST

[lulilu]

Thanks again dx for your help.

 

Am I right in thinking that you reckon I should forget about reclaiming the insurances I paid to the 2md mortgage lender.

 

If I should forget all about this can you also tell me if I need to bother about the fob-off letter.

[dx100uk]

as far as I read it, they have charged you interest passed the initial discount period

so how can you forget it

 

dx

[lulilu]

Sorry for the confusion here. I was asking you if you think I should forget all about it. I asked this because you said you would never recommend court. By this I thought you meant don't bother cos you will lose.

I didn't notice until you mentioned it that that they charged me interest passed the initial discount period. Can I claim only for this interest they charged me or the entire insurance.

On the 2nd (offer of ) mortgage at clause 6 it states that I must take out and pay for separate life interest or what they call Term Assurance Policy but the 2nd mortgage company is the sole beneficiary. Do you think it is possible to reclaim this plus interest.

Sorry to be a bit of a pain and a bit slow but I find all this very difficult to understand

Thanks again,

Lulilu.

[dx100uk]

I an not a legal expert, so cannot say eitherway

but I've not seen any cases that relate to your situation.

 

if/if not you would lose, again I offer no opinion.

 

on the 1st mortgage, the fact that the cover they made compulsory over the discount period

is having interest charged across the whole term [increasing the money it cost you several times]

I bet was never explained to you in detail?

 

just 'because' the advisor made you sign various forms & latterly had documentation sent that indicated how you could cancel

does not make it correct that they charged you [int full term] and fobbed you off when you questioned it.

 

it was missold , reclaim the whole thing.

 

as for the 2nd & clause 6, it has been proved time and time again

that what is contained in lenders T&C is not the end of the matter.

 

just look at the PPI debacle & the PENALTY charges one too.

 

the banks said as its in our T&C's and the borrowers signed it,

theyhave agred to them.

 

the FOS/OFT/FCA/FSA all decided differently!!

 

dx