Veste

Upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Newbury Building Society

Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-2096065 of 2016-12-05T00:00:00+00:00. PPI mis-selling complaint against Newbury Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.

Decision detail

ReferenceDRN-2096065
Decision date2016-12-05T00:00:00+00:00
FirmNewbury Building Society
ProductPPI
Claim typePPI mis-selling
OutcomeUpheld
RemedyNewbury Building Society must: (1) cancel the policy if not already cancelled; (2) refund all monthly PPI payments Mrs M made; (3) add simple interest at 8% per annum to each payment from when it was paid until refunded; (4) deduct any successful claims Mrs M made under the policy from the amount owed; (5) provide a tax certificate if requested.

Summary

Mrs M complained that Newbury Building Society mis-sold her an MPPI policy taken out with a mortgage in 2003. The MPPI policy required the policyholder to have been employed for six continuous months at the time of purchase, but Mrs M did not meet this requirement. Although Newbury later checked with insurers who suggested a short employment gap would be acceptable under current practices, the ombudsman based the decision on the policy terms provided at the time of sale. The ombudsman upheld the complaint, finding Mrs M was ineligible for the policy and would not have purchased it had she known this fact. Newbury was ordered to refund all monthly premiums paid with 8% simple interest.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman upheld the complaint because Mrs M was not eligible for the MPPI policy according to the terms and conditions she was given at the time of sale, as she had not been employed for six continuous months. The decision was based on information from the time of sale, not on what Newbury claims it would do now. Since Mrs M was ineligible, the policy was of no use to her, and she would not have purchased it had she known this fact.

How this compares

GroupDecisionsUphold rate
Newbury Building Society, all decisions560%
PPI mis-selling, all decisions85,73225%
PPI, all decisions85,31627%

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website