Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

Author

Message

Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 12:59 pm
Offline

Joined
Jul 2009
Posts
111
Most people will be aware that there is a lot int he media about payment protection policies being missold and banks and credit cards are meant to be reviewing to see if people were missold a policy. Payment protection ocvers you if you are made redundant, out sick, out of work.

Just to share my own situation - in 2008 we took out a loan, the loan officer encouraged us to take out PPI. I had never taken it before because I am a public servant so I would not get any extra cover, my husband is a semi state but also D rate stamp. At the time his organisation wee talking about redudnancies so on foot of the loan officer being persuasive I took it out naming him as the person protected. Roll on 7 month and I realised that he would not be covered for anything as he would never be made compulsory redunanct and it would not cover voluntary redundanancy so I cancelled the policy. I got the remainder of the money back at the time, they would not refund what I had already paid.

In 2013 when this story appeared about misselling of policies I wrote to the bank requesting a refund of the money we had paid as I believed we were missold the policy. There was much tooing and froing and I referred it to the financial ombudsman. They were about to commence an investigation when the bank made us an offer to settle of the amount of premiums paid plus interest which we have accepted, though needless to say they did not say we were missold it.

I am posting this in case there are other public servants who took it out and might be able to benefit.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 1:20 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2009
Posts
9833
Where loans were concerned there were 2 separate policies available, one for redundancy and one for specified illnesses if you were off work sick.
It is right to say public servants couldn't avail of the redundancy policy however, it is entirely incorrect to say they couldn't avail of the illness one. I know of many who did.
Yes many policies were missold, but equally, a huge number were sold correctly and many people now claiming they were missold would have been quick enough to claim if they'd needed to. Insurance is bought in the hope you never need it, it doesn't make it worthless or missold just because you are lucky enough not to claim.

_________________
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:04 pm
Offline

Joined
Apr 2009
Posts
4178
Thanks for that - I recently got a letter from Ebs saying we weren't sold payment protection but I am a public servant and we were while not told it was mandatory strongly advised to take it out- I think I will be writing to them on the basis that I was and still am a public servant .


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:39 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Aug 2009
Posts
7133
Asco wrote:
Where loans were concerned there were 2 separate policies available, one for redundancy and one for specified illnesses if you were off work sick.
It is right to say public servants couldn't avail of the redundancy policy however, it is entirely incorrect to say they couldn't avail of the illness one. I know of many who did.
Yes many policies were missold, but equally, a huge number were sold correctly and many people now claiming they were missold would have been quick enough to claim if they'd needed to. Insurance is bought in the hope you never need it, it doesn't make it worthless or missold just because you are lucky enough not to claim.

This. I was looking at our paperwork and we actually have a letter from our solicitor pointing out that the letter offering us our mortgage said it was dependant on us having both life assurance and mortgage payment protection policies, which shouldn't have been the case. So we were missold it, technically. But thinking about it, we're going to hang onto the policy because if one of us does kick the bucket in the next 20 years it'll be very bloody useful!

_________________
Image Image


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 2:57 pm
Offline

Joined
Oct 2010
Posts
1141
Your're confusing life assurance/mortgage protection which pays out on death with payment protection policies which pay out on accident/illness, redundancy or hospital cover if self employed.

It is a condition of all mortgages that you have your life covered with insurance, your repayment cover is optional.

Civil/public servants could indeed avail of this type of policy and many did depending on their situation, yes they couldn't be made redundant but could avail of the accident/illness part of the policy. Particularly anyone where there was only a basic salary paid if out sick, for example anyone on shift work like a Garda who could lose out a lot if out of work for a while, they would be paid but would have a shortfall which the insurance could be used to cover.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:13 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2009
Posts
9833
Gingercat, you have to have life cover, it's in the consumer credit act, no choice, but a mortgage can not be dependant on repayment protection. Completely illegal selling practices. Not all mortgage/loan advisors sold irresponsibly but some did and having it in writing like that is proof.
Agapanthus, many lending institutions offered 2 separate policies, you could choose between illness and redundancy. If an advisor sold redundancy cover to a public servant they'd have room for complaint but selling illness cover they don't. Compared with the problem in the uk only a small percentage of policies here were actually been missold.

_________________
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 4:48 pm
Offline

Joined
Oct 2010
Posts
1141
Yes Asco, there was a tick box for whether or not you wanted accident illness & redundancy or accident illness & hospitalisation on the policies I spent years dealing with. I am sure many were mis-sold but the product had it's uses too, I always recommended it for example in the case of a couple where maybe both were working for same employer, if employer went both jobs were gone. It happened too over the years, multinationals closing down unexpectedly and these claims were paid for up to a year. Yes it's hard to claim but all insurance is but if you have a valid claim you will be paid.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:13 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2009
Posts
9833
agapanthus wrote:
Yes Asco, there was a tick box for whether or not you wanted accident illness & redundancy or accident illness & hospitalisation on the policies I spent years dealing with. I am sure many were mis-sold but the product had it's uses too, I always recommended it for example in the case of a couple where maybe both were working for same employer, if employer went both jobs were gone. It happened too over the years, multinationals closing down unexpectedly and these claims were paid for up to a year. Yes it's hard to claim but all insurance is but if you have a valid claim you will be paid.


Exactly. I for one am fed up with people assuming if they had a ppi policy they were ripped off and mis-sold.

_________________
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:41 pm
Offline

Joined
Oct 2010
Posts
1141
Me too!


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 10:54 pm
Offline

Joined
Jul 2009
Posts
111
Just to clarify as few things. The PPI I was sold covered involuntary unemployment, critical illness, major injury, death. The involuntary unemployment did not apply to either of us, we were both paid while out sick so did not need to purchase extra cover - that does not mean we would not have been able to apply if we went sick, we had a separate life policy so basically we already had everything so there was no need for the policy. We specifically said we were aware of possible redundancies in my husbands jobs to the loan officer - so even if it had not been semistate you are not covered if you already know something and it was always likely to be voluntary not involuntary. We were definitely mis sold the policy on foot of a very persuasive loan officer - I had never taken it out before despite being asked.

That is not to say that it was mis sold to everyone. I am sure it has been useful to many people. But the fact is that in 80% of cases in the UK the financial services ombudsman ruled that people were mis sold the policies although in Ireland it is only about 11% which I cannot fathom. My case has been settled so probably won't even go on the ombudsman figures.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:13 pm
Offline

Joined
Oct 2010
Posts
1141
Does no one read policies when they take them out? All the relevant info is in the policy documents and none of these policies cover voluntary redundancy and it is stated clearly in them. I would never take the word of a salesperson, be it for financial products or second hand cars, without checking the info myself as well.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:17 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2009
Posts
9833
It's not just civil and public servants who are paid when off sick, it's still recommended to have some form of illness benefit. If you are off long term, chances are you'll have medical bills and expenses you wouldn't have had if you were in work. So the policy would have covered them. That is the point of having it.
Redundancy is only one small part of the policy. You were sold it to cover all eventualities not just redundancy. If they'd bothered to look into it and the correct documentation was there I reckon you wouldn't have been successful in your case. Sometimes it's easier and better business to just pay up to shut up. They won't do that in every case.

The fact is the vast majority of bank sales advisors were highly qualified and aware of their obligations under the law. That is why the figure is much lower here, and the majority of cases that will be awarded will be based on incorrect documentation being held on file rather than a valid claim.

_________________
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:48 pm
Offline

Joined
Jul 2009
Posts
111
Can I ask asco if you work in this area because you are getting very defensive. My post was for information evefyones case will be different. Documentation was not lost in my case and they have settled with interest before investigation. As a previous poster said in some cases people were told it was mandatory. Commission on these products was very high hence they were sold. I do not believe we are that different from the uk in terms of numbers. Also I would not belittle people by saying do they not read policies. In some cases people were no doubt afraid they would not get the loan if they refused the ppi. As I said previously each case is different and I won't judge people who think they were missold policies.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 11:56 pm
Offline
User avatar

Joined
Oct 2009
Posts
9833
Slainte, it's not about being defensive and yes I guarantee we had very very different practices than the uk, I worked with a uk institution and I can tell you massive differences.
How can you say that documentation wasn't missing off your file if no investigation was undertaken, do you know what information is required to be held on a lending file?
Fact is we do not have the same problems here as they had in the uk for exactly the reasons I stated, better qualifications, better staff and better knowledge of obligations. I'm not for one second saying it didn't happen, the example above of it noted in a credit agreement is proof of that, but public servants are not automatically entitled to a refund just because they couldn't avail of one part of the policy, if they have illness cover then they could claim and assuming all else was in order and a fact find completed there is no claim for being mis-sold the policy. That is not defensive, that is correcting your misinformation.

_________________
If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything - Mark Twain


Top
Profile
Reply with quote
Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 6:26 pm
Offline

Joined
Jul 2009
Posts
111
Asco wrote:
Slainte, it's not about being defensive and yes I guarantee we had very very different practices than the uk, I worked with a uk institution and I can tell you massive differences.
How can you say that documentation wasn't missing off your file if no investigation was undertaken, do you know what information is required to be held on a lending file?
Fact is we do not have the same problems here as they had in the uk for exactly the reasons I stated, better qualifications, better staff and better knowledge of obligations. I'm not for one second saying it didn't happen, the example above of it noted in a credit agreement is proof of that, but public servants are not automatically entitled to a refund just because they couldn't avail of one part of the policy, if they have illness cover then they could claim and assuming all else was in order and a fact find completed there is no claim for being mis-sold the policy. That is not defensive, that is correcting your misinformation.


Nowhere in my posts did I state that public servants are automatically entitled to a refund just because they couldn't avail of one part of the policy so I did not give misinformation. What I have at all times stated was that it is down to individual circumstances and I gave my own information to explain what happened in my case. The information was not missing from my file because they sent me a copy of the application and also the financial ombudsman requested it. Can I be sure that it was all there - no - but neither can you state with certainty that it was not. My point is not that people could not claim the illness part but that it would be very silly to take out a policy and pay extra premiums for other parts they could not claim - they could simply take a critical illness policy. The fact remains that the bank settled my case before investigation which means I was mis sold the policy and also that this will not figure in the figures of those missold the policy. I hope that people are not put off examining their own situation because of your very defensive posts - they have nothing to lose by asking for it to be looked at. You seem to be saying they should not even ask.


Top
Profile
Reply with quote

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 1  [ 15 posts ]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum