Is this a 'single premium' ppi & therefore re-claimable ?

[Helplessconsumer]

When I took out a mortgage with SPML (& previously with other lenders) there was a large figure of about £1000 for an insurance premium added to the loan.

 

I didn't understand what it was at all & asked for an explanation. I was told

a) that it was compulsory (wrong ?) &

 

b) that it was insurance not for me but the the lender so that if I failed to pay the mortgage this insurance policy was in place to re-imburse the lender if I couldn't pay.

 

I now realise this must have been single premium PPI & therefore should be reclaimed plus all the interest .

 

Can someone tell me if this the case - that this is a PPI which I can claim for being miss-sold.

 

Thanks for any help on this

[dx100uk]

yes in a nutshell.

 

 

dx

[Helplessconsumer]

Thanks Dx100uk

 

I had heard a lot about PPI &

 

 

I had already had a careful think whether I had taken out any PPI &

 

 

concluded that as I was completely unaware of being in any situation where I had voluntarily taken out a loan

or any kind or credit card etc, where I had then also deliberately & specifically thought I'll take out payment protection insurance

 

 

( I had once actually looked at this & was of the opinion that it was very expensive & cover was so limited

as to be virtually worthless anyway and definitely not something I would ever buy )

 

 

that I therefore had nothing to claim.

 

 

How wrong I was.

 

 

I think I have three large figures of about £1000 plus interest for three mortgages to claim.

 

This really goes to show that the obfuscation of the financial industry is good at completely pulling the wool over peoples eyes.

 

 

Even though I am immersed in reading & thinking about financial industry scandal on a daily basis

I was still incapable of realising I had signifigant claims.

 

I am amazed at how this can happen.

[dx100uk]

best idea is to get all the info via an sar.

 

 

theres no need for 'you' to insure yourself against not being able to

pay because the lender wants you too.

 

 

ok careful dissection of the T&C's are required in certain instances

 

 

but the bottom line is the only thing you must have is buildings insurance in place

and not necessarily with 'that' lender.

 

 

dx

[theoldrouge]

are these old mortgages?

were they granted on the basis of high loan to value (over 75%)

 

this could be Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee, which the borrower had to pay

 

as a condition of obtaining the mortgage

 

the lender then purchased a policy in order to protect themselves in the case of a repo shortfall

 

As dx says you will need to carefully examine the t&cs

[Helplessconsumer]

Your description sounds like it is the same as insurance ?

[theoldrouge]

it is insurance, but the borrower in order to obtain the mortgage, had to pay for the lender to purchase

 

an insurance policy in order to protect themselves against any shortfall on repossession.

 

So you were not sold that type of insurance, the policy was sold to the lender

 

but the borrower had to fund it, otherwise no mortgage.

 

Hence the need to check the t&cs of any mortgage offer

[Helplessconsumer]

I spoke to the Ombudsman & they didn't know what it was, saying they had never heard of something like this, but advised me to look at t&c and send it all to them anyway so they could find out if it was actionable.

[theoldrouge]

it really beggars belief that they had never heard of Mortgage Indemnity Guarantees

 

have a read of this thread fom post no 29 onwardshttp://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?139339-What-you-can-cannot-claim/page2

[Helplessconsumer]

theoldrouge

 

Thanks. You have no idea what you have just done. Having read what I have just read as a result of you pointing me to the above thread I realise I absolutely have a miss-selling case worth what looks like hundreds of thousands of pounds assuming the principle of being placed back in the position you were before you were ripped off. I am too exhausted to explain further as I have been on the computer for days & days all day to the exclusion of everything else.

 

I always did know all this really , but with me being fobbed off right left & centre by absolutely everyone my brain has just turned to porridge. And the harsh reality is that you can do nothing by yourself. Lawyers are essential & so is other support before that. Instead all I've had is the exact opposite of support of any kind.

 

 

I'll be back. I'm determined to seek redress as the damage done to my life by having my house stolen is immense & until the sub-prime nasties got hold of me I was always exemplary & conservative about managing my mortgage & always had a huge amount of equity in the house.

 

But the thing is, not only have I been stitched up by the lenders, but amazingly by everyone I went to for any help - the CAB, Solicitors, Shelter and loads more. You just could not believe what I have gone through. I'll be back. I am also going to write the whole thing out in a blog somewhere.

 

I can't resist one little example of what I mean. I was the LIP in the appeal court asking to overturn the judgement of eviction by the lender from the lower court. I had no idea about law at all & assumed that judges would know the law and I had no idea of how to present/argue a case.

 

The lower court judge bowled me over when his first words in his judgement were "This has been going on long enough now ........' in other words it's time to stop your legitimate attempts to avoid eviction. The case going on too long was being quoted as the reason for the eviction judgement which actually should have been at least deferred pending further action.

 

So, the judge in the appeal court interrupts my opening of the case where I was explaining the history of the mortgage and quoting various grounds of law which seemed to show why I had a case. At some point I said the lender had behaved fraudulently - it had, definitely. This judge stopped me and said "Don't spoil what is a very good case by talking about fraud in this court....' He then went red in the face and corrected himself by repeating what he had said word for word but changing is to what MAY be a very good case. He then proceeded to interrupt me twice more to tell me to 'get a move on'. I had been speaking for not more than ten minutes max.

 

On the last interruption I said I don't know what to say (as you are interrupting me and effectively telling me I can't tell you about the mortgage and what happened) & after five seconds he whipped his head round to face the barrister for the lender & asked them to rebut my 'case' which I hadn't yet presented.That judge was a nasty piece of work. He also ignored my statement that I had not been sent the evidence by the lender. I badly wanted a copy of the mortgage agreement because I know it had been altered after I had sent it to the lender and that alteration alone proved their fraud.

 

As a result of the fiasco of the appeal I was evicted the very next day, out on the street with my child. Just 24 hours notice of eviction, completely homeless, nowhere to go at all.

 

And then there were the shenanegins from the council. There's a novel here I think.