Not upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against Marsden Building Society

Decision detail

Summary

Mr and Mrs B complained that Marsden Building Society mis-sold them a PPI policy in 2002 when they arranged their mortgage. They recalled not discussing the PPI and feeling forced to accept it to get the mortgage approved. The ombudsman found that while PPI was indeed a condition for borrowing over 80% of the property value (they borrowed 89%), Mr and Mrs B would have been aware of this requirement and could have chosen a different lender. The policy was suitable for their circumstances as Mr B was self-employed, the main earner without sick pay, and the couple had no savings. The policy terms did not unfairly restrict unemployment claims for self-employed persons. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that although PPI was a condition of the mortgage, Mr and Mrs B would have been aware of this requirement and could have chosen a different lender if they objected. The policy was suitable for their circumstances: Mr B was the main earner without sick pay entitlements, Mrs B had generous sick pay, and they had no savings. The policy terms did not unfairly restrict claims for self-employed persons. While information provision may have been incomplete, this would not have changed their decision to purchase as part of the mortgage deal.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website