Never did that will take a look though thanks

Yeah I had a meeting when I took out my mortgage with them. Fairly sure there was never a demands and needs assessment though is this something they should have done?

Hi there, Thanks for welcome. They sold me a policy on a mortgage but it was never called PPI in anything I signed. It was recommended I took it out though to cover for any long term illnesses they told me. This was despite the fact I made them aware that in my job I was entitled to 6 months full pay and 6 months half pay if off long term sick so in my opinion it was something that should never have been recommended as I din't require it. It was only when they sent me a letter saying thank you for renewing your PPI policy that I questioned what this was as it was never marketed in that way I'm confused as to what this new evidence is though and why it wasn't made available in the first instance to the ombudsman?

Hi there, First time posting here but looking for some advice if at all possible. I've been successful with a number of claims and I've had a claim outstanding with the ombudsman for a while. The background to the story was I found a letter telling me I had PPI on a mortgage I held with the Clydesdale Bank, Initially I wrote directly to the bank who told me they looked at my claim and while I did have a PPI policy it was not mis-sold. I disagreed with this and wrote to the ombudsman for a ruling. I received a response after 8-9 months saying they had reviewed the case and had decided to uphold my complaint and that the bank had 8 weeks to make an offer to me based on their findings. After hearing nothing for almost 3 months I contacted them this week to find out if any updates had appeared on my case. I was told that there was an update stating that the bank had disputed their findings and had provided new evidence which now needs reviewed. This can take 12-18 months again as the whole process goes back to the start again due to this. Has anybody ever had any experience of something like this where initially the ruling is in your favour but then goes back into dispute due to the bank suddenly uncovering new evidence to support their claim? Thanks