Jump to content


Yorkshire Building Society refused PPI reclaim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2053 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have submitted reclaim for missold PPI to Yorkshire Building Society

 

 

they have responded to advise that they refuse claim on the grounds that throughout their investigation they found no evidence to suggest they acted inappropriately or improperly in any way either when arranging MPI cover at the outset or since.

They have although found evidence to suggest that we were aware of the policy existing.

 

We were told at the outset of applying for our mortgage that we would have to take endowment and payment protection insurance for our mortgage application to be looked on favourably.

 

 

It was our first ever house purchase and mortgage and both my ex husband and I remember being pushed in the direction the mortgage adviser wanted and because we so wanted this house we agreed to all they told us we had to.

 

They have provided copies of all the signed forms and say they find no evidence of misselling...... But they won't do because it was verbally implied we wouldn't get if didn't go down route of endowment policy and protect our payments.

 

Do we go straight to FOS now or go back to the Building Society?

 

 

What evidence could we provide to say missold as it was verbal?

Of course they not going to have it written on any documents it's just my ex husbands and my verbal evidence?

 

What now?

Anyone have any advice on how we can prove?

 

Thanks

 

P.s. I also notice they have changed it from PPI to MPI and the insurance we took out was to cover payments which we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancy and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

It was a monthly premium we paid which didn't affect any further interest charges added onto the mortgage but it was definable to cover our mortgage payment to the endowment policy if we were out of work for a period of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancylink3.gif and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

then it was totally worthless and your circumstances were not properly assessed.

thus mis-sold.

 

 

that attached PDF might help.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there would be no harm in trying YB again.

 

 

rarely do any companies cough on a first attempt.

 

 

did you also include an FOS CQ with the complaint

or was it simply a speculation letter?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would,

the fact that the PPI was all but useless you both as you already had sufficient cover

is a more compelling reason for mis-sale

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have submitted reclaim for missold PPI to Yorkshire Building Society

 

 

they have responded to advise that they refuse claim on the grounds that throughout their investigation they found no evidence to suggest they acted inappropriately or improperly in any way either when arranging MPI cover at the outset or since.

They have although found evidence to suggest that we were aware of the policy existing.

 

We were told at the outset of applying for our mortgage that we would have to take endowment and payment protection insurance for our mortgage application to be looked on favourably.

 

As regards the endowment, I am assuming your mortgage was interest only? If this is the case then it is correct that they insist on your having a repayment vehicle in place for the capital element.

 

 

It was our first ever house purchase and mortgage and both my ex husband and I remember being pushed in the direction the mortgage adviser wanted and because we so wanted this house we agreed to all they told us we had to.

 

They have provided copies of all the signed forms and say they find no evidence of misselling...... But they won't do because it was verbally implied we wouldn't get if didn't go down route of endowment policy and protect our payments.

 

When they say they find no evidence of misspelling, is this because it genuinely WAS a requirement of the offer that you take out PPI? (it isn't misselling if they tell you it is a condition of the offer and it genuinely is, only if they tell you it is a condition when it is not) Or are they saying it wasn't a condition of the offer but they can find no evidence to support your allegation? If the latter, this is the problem with verbal accusations, they are virtually impossible to prove.

 

Do we go straight to FOS now or go back to the Building Society?

 

If you have any further evidence or info they have not taken into account then go back to them. But don't leave it too long as you only have six months to go to FOS. If you are just arguing the toss over their original conclusion, this is unlikely to be successful and you may as well go directly to FOS.

 

What evidence could we provide to say missold as it was verbal?

Of course they not going to have it written on any documents it's just my ex husbands and my verbal evidence?

 

What now?

Anyone have any advice on how we can prove?

 

You can't.

 

Thanks

 

P.s. I also notice they have changed it from PPI to MPI and the insurance we took out was to cover payments which we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancy and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

It was a monthly premium we paid which didn't affect any further interest charges added onto the mortgage but it was definable to cover our mortgage payment to the endowment policy if we were out of work for a period of time.

 

How long did you get full sick pay for? It is generally very hard to make this argument stick with FOS on mortgage PPI because it is a long term debt and can result in your being made homeless if unpaid. It is easier with unsecured loan/credit card PPI as this debt is considered of less importance. 12 months full pay or more might be a winner, any less and probably not. As regards redundancy pay, this is not likely to be a consideration, you are very unlikely to have a contractual entitlement to this (since it would become taxable if you did), any redundancy would be an ex gratia payment at the discretion of the company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
we didn't need as I got full sick pay and redundancylink3.gif and so was the case for my ex husband.

 

 

then it was totally worthless and your circumstances were not properly assessed.

thus mis-sold.

 

 

that attached PDF might help.

 

 

dx

 

If the policy was sold on an advised basis and the OP had sufficient sick pay then this is correct. If it was sold on a non advised basis then the company is not responsible for assessing circumstances and appropriateness, this is the customer's responsibility. The OP has not said which this was nor how much sick pay he/she actually got, hence it is difficult to advise with certainty in this case. "

 

As regards the attached judgement, I don't feel it is likely to be of much use in this case. Completely different set of circumstances. The policy in that case was a single premium one, which as you can tell from the judgement, FOS don't like anyway, as opposed to a regular premium one. It was much more expensive than most mortgage PPI and was protecting a debt that is considered much less important than a mortgage, which can result in being made homeless if you don't pay it. The customer in that case was also concluded to have received advice and benefitted from one of the best sick pay schemes in the country. If FOS consider that the customer had sufficient sick pay to make the policy unnecessary then even in the absence of any evidence, they will assume that the customer can't have been accurately informed of what the product was/covered otherwise they wouldn't have purchased it. However, with MPPI, generally you would need at least 12 months full pay for FOS to uphold on this basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...