Mortgage PPI from 2004

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Basically the FOS are saying, what you already know, they cannot look at the complaint against Assurant - as Assurant were not liable for the sale.

So in theory you're complaining about the wrong firm as Assurant did not sell the product to you did they? The FOS are implying whoever did sell it, was not an agent of Assurant hence why should Assurant be held to task? They shouldn't - it must be whoever sold the policy that you complain about - if Assurant bought the old business out then it's the same as them selling it direct - if it was an agent that was not tied to Assurant, but to somewhere else which is now closed down then your complaint will likely fail against Assurant - so in that case you need to find out who sold it and who owns them now.

That is what is meant with the Jurisdiction - ie do the FOS even have the authority to investigate because Assurant were not liable and still aren't (in their view).

Ok thanks for explaining Niddy!

So, it was a company called Capital Mortgage Connections who sold us the policy. They no longer exist. I wish I had all the paperwork relating to the mortgage, maybe I'd have more to go on. They came to arrange a mortgage for us but then sold us a policy we didn't actually ask for. Would that be normal practice or would the broker be selling these products on someone's behalf? Would they be tied to financial institutions or as an independent broker would that not apply? I remember the broker having commission that was added to the loan, but I don't know if that was from the mortgage lender or what, as I said wish I had the paperwork. I guess I am onto plums here!

Do I have any path for recourse here? Stuck with £4000 on my mortgage for a policy that has now expired and is useless and that I couldn't have cancelled after the first 30 days even if I'd wanted! It's bloody robbery! :-(

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Honestly I'm not sure, I will need to ask for clarification from them when I reply. The way I read it is that any info Assurant send me will not help influence the Ombudsman's decision, as they are ruling on who should take responsibility for my complaint, not on the actual merits of the complaint itself, and they are obviously satisfied that Capital mortgage Connections were not working as an agent for Assurant.

That is correct - that is how I am reading it and fully understand the FOS' point of view - how can a firm be blamed for something they did not partake in?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Basically the FOS are saying, what you already know, they cannot look at the complaint against Assurant - as Assurant were not liable for the sale.

So in theory you're complaining about the wrong firm as Assurant did not sell the product to you did they? The FOS are implying whoever did sell it, was not an agent of Assurant hence why should Assurant be held to task? They shouldn't - it must be whoever sold the policy that you complain about - if Assurant bought the old business out then it's the same as them selling it direct - if it was an agent that was not tied to Assurant, but to somewhere else which is now closed down then your complaint will likely fail against Assurant - so in that case you need to find out who sold it and who owns them now.

That is what is meant with the Jurisdiction - ie do the FOS even have the authority to investigate because Assurant were not liable and still aren't (in their view).

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Wow, that's way too much for my pea brain to take in all at once.

In a nutshell are the FOS saying they will wait for you to produce your evidence (following your SAR) or not?

Plan B x

Honestly I'm not sure, I will need to ask for clarification from them when I reply. The way I read it is that any info Assurant send me will not help influence the Ombudsman's decision, as they are ruling on who should take responsibility for my complaint, not on the actual merits of the complaint itself, and they are obviously satisfied that Capital mortgage Connections were not working as an agent for Assurant.

I have no idea how the whole agent thing works. CMC were a mortgage broker who came to arrange a mortgage for us. In the process of doing so he sold us a PPI policy that we did not ask for. Why did he do that? What was in it for him? Am I barking up the wrong tree and was it perhaps the mortgage lender (Bristol & West I think) who required us to have this insurance. Were Bristol & West and Assurant working together? Am I clutching at straws? Lol

I really am pretty clueless on all this and am starting to feel like giving up as I don't see this going our way at all now

[PlanB]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Wow, that's way too much for my pea brain to take in all at once.

In a nutshell are the FOS saying they will wait for you to produce your evidence (following your SAR) or not?

Plan B x

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: More urgent SAR advice please

HELP!!!! Can someone who understands the whole jurisdiction and the role of 'appointed selling agents' stuff help me get my head round all this as I am so confused! I emailed the Ombudsman with the update regarding the SAR for Assurant and also advised that I found a similar upheld case to our own. They have replied basically saying that their decision this far has had nothing to do with the actual merits of our complaint, but about whether Assurant should be held responsible. I guess I understand what they are saying here, but where I am confused is with the whole 'agent' thing! Apparently in the upheld case the company who sold the policy were appointed by Assurant whereas the company who sold ours was not. The Ombudsman says it''s not impossible for Assurant to appoint a 3rd party, however that completely contradicts what Assurant told me in a letter in response to my complaint to them. They stated 'AGIL's authority does not extend to selling activities, it is not actually possible for us to appoint a third party to act as our agent for this purpose. To do so would be unlawful'

Can someone please explain this in laymans terms as I am just not getting it.

Thanks in advance!!

Here is the reply from the Ombudsman copied from my email. They are still going to deliver a final response for me after further investigation, but I'm thinking it's not going to be in my favour!!

'The reason is that we already said we cannot take your case further because the specific business that sold your PPI policy did not act as an agent of Assurant. I realise that, in both situations, the sale was in 2004 and through a third party. But, it was not impossible for Assurant to have an agreement in place for specific third parties to act on its behalf. In the decision you refer to, it appears as though the sale was through one of Assurant’s appointed agents which is why we could hold it responsible for the agent’s actions. As we did not have to establish whether our service had the power to look at that complaint, we could assess its merits. That is the point we upheld the complaint and made a final decision, which Assurant then accepted.'

'But in your case, we had to look into whether we could hold Assurant responsible for your PPI sale as Assurant said your third party did not act as its agent. This is referred to as our jurisdiction and, before we can consider the merits, we have to resolve any jurisdictional issues. We found that your specific third party was not acting on behalf of Assurant which then meant we could not consider your complaint against Assurant. So, we cannot look into the merits of your complaint and cannot say whether or not the policy was mis-sold. For this reason, the decision you refer to does not relate to quite the same situation as your own.

The ombudsman will be considering all the evidence available relating to jurisdiction and will decide if our service has the power to consider the merits of your complaint.'

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: More urgent SAR advice please

^^^^ In answer to that question I think you should write to the FOS and ask to see all the evidence which they have been sent and which they are relying on to make their final Decision. Tell them you need it because it contrasts with your recollection of events.

I did that and got back a huge file from them which I used to pick holes in their (FOS) investigation.

Tell them you need it within seven days. Take back control of the timetable since I sense you're feeling pressured by them to 'get on with it' before you're ready.

Plan B x

Ok thanks, I'll give that a shot. The last email I sent to my adjudicator I got an automatic response advising they were not working for the FOS anymore. I have emailed them again asking who is now dealing with my case so I can correspond with them direct.

Do you think I should draw their attention to the similar case that I found in their archives or wait until I've received info from them and/or Assurant? I don't want push too hard but at the same time I don't want to fail to mention something that could prove vital in my case.

Thanks again PlanB!

[PlanB]

Re: More urgent SAR advice please

am I allowed to see what info Assurant have provided to the FOS? They have said Assurant ‘confirmed’ that Capital Mortgage Connections did not act as their agent and that they’ve seen no evidence to contradict that. They then go on to say they’ve checked if there was any DIRECT connection . . . but ‘from what we’ve seen it doesn’t look like the case'. I’d like to know how Assurant CONFIRMED this, what the FOS have SEEN . . .. . This all bothers me a lot as I have not seen the evidence that Assurant have provided

^^^^ In answer to that question I think you should write to the FOS and ask to see all the evidence which they have been sent and which they are relying on to make their final Decision. Tell them you need it because it contrasts with your recollection of events.

I did that and got back a huge file from them which I used to pick holes in their (FOS) investigation.

Tell them you need it within seven days. Take back control of the timetable since I sense you're feeling pressured by them to 'get on with it' before you're ready.

Plan B x

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

The original mortgage application and underwriter's notes should come with the SAR.

I was asking because I have a particular interest in mortgage misselling so wondered whether you were sold the right product for your circumstances in the first place, or were you sold a mortgage which advantaged the lender due to cross-selling commission etc.

I doubt the FOS will have asked to see the mortgage application which could be a reason why the lender is reluctant to send you a response to your SAR request where it should be included.

How long ago did you remortgage away from the first lender? Presumably the current mortgage includes all the balance outstanding at the time you made the switch which includes the £4k PPI premium and you're still paying interest on that sum to the substitute lender.

Were either or both of the mortgages interest only or repayment? If they were interest only then the original £4k PPI premium has not been reduced.

This would be a separate issue to PPI misselling (albeit related) and one we can look at later.

Plan B x

We probably remortgaged 2 or 3 years later. We have always remortgaged every 2 or 3 years to try and take advantage of interest rates etc. I'm fairly sure there was mention of the brokers commission but I can't remember exactly. We have always had a repayment mortgage until 6 years ago when my husband was made redundant (and the policy was expired, oh joy!) and have been on an interest only mortgage since then. We're hoping to move back to a repayment early next year if our finances allow but will most likely have to extend the term, as there's only about 8/9 years left but we wouldn't be able to afford the monthly payment paying it over that short term, so will be paying it for even longer. So yes, we have not reduced our mortgage balance, and therefore the PPI, for the last 6 years.

After finding the upheld case that I posted above I was reading it some more. So many parallels with our case, the year it was taken out (2004), the seller now no longer trading, it was in conjunction with a mortgage and the other customer like us was consolidating debts. The Ombudsman found the bit in the policy relating to cancelling after 30 days to be an unfair contract, this is also in our policy that I only noticed myself recently. If Assurant accept responsibility, and I do not understand why they have not done so in our case, then surely the FOS should then be able to investigate our case for miss-selling.

[PlanB]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

unfortunately we no longer have the original paperwork as we remortgaged to another provider in between times so I only have the policy document

The original mortgage application and underwriter's notes should come with the SAR.

I was asking because I have a particular interest in mortgage misselling so wondered whether you were sold the right product for your circumstances in the first place, or were you sold a mortgage which advantaged the lender due to cross-selling commission etc.

I doubt the FOS will have asked to see the mortgage application which could be a reason why the lender is reluctant to send you a response to your SAR request where it should be included.

How long ago did you remortgage away from the first lender? Presumably the current mortgage includes all the balance outstanding at the time you made the switch which includes the £4k PPI premium and you're still paying interest on that sum to the substitute lender.

Were either or both of the mortgages interest only or repayment? If they were interest only then the original £4k PPI premium has not been reduced.

This would be a separate issue to PPI misselling (albeit related) and one we can look at later.

Plan B x

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Do you still have a copy of your mortgage application ?

That would be my starting point if this was an "advised" sale.

Plan B x

No unfortunately we no longer have the original paperwork as we remortgaged to another provider in between times so I only have the policy document

[PlanB]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

it was in joint names. My husband was deemed to be the main earner and in a less stable job. That was recommended by the mortgage adviser.

Do you still have a copy of your mortgage application ?

That would be my starting point if this was an "advised" sale.

Plan B x

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

Was/is the mortgage in both names?

(Sorry I should know that but I haven't made time to read back through your thread).

Plan B x

Yes it was in joint names. My husband was deemed to be the main earner and in a less stable job. That was recommended by the mortgage adviser.

[PlanB]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

When I say 'we', it was actually only my husband as he was the main earner, thouggh the policy was in both names!

Was/is the mortgage in both names?

(Sorry I should know that but I haven't made time to read back through your thread).

Plan B x

[Stressedoutmum]

Re: Mortgage PPI from 2004

I thought this was interesting. Thought I'd have a look on the FOS website and saw that they publish their Ombudsman decisions. I searched for Assurant and found this complaint which they upheld. Although it doesn't give all the details, it is remarkably similar to my case, even down to the fact it was prior to 2005 and the 'seller' is no longer trading, but Assurant accepted responsibility! God I feel like showing the FOS this and saying why are Assurant not taking responsibility for my complaint? Actually thinking about it, shouldn't I bring this to the FOS attention? Assurant admitted to me that they did not appoint 'agents' to sell their products, so if they accepted responsibility for this sale should they not also accept it for mine. Then the FOS can rule on whether the policy was missold or not?

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=70996

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.u...x?FileID=61050