Upheld: PPI mis-selling complaint against The Mansfield Building Society
Financial Ombudsman decision DRN-7770338 of 2018-05-17T00:00:00+00:00. PPI mis-selling complaint against The Mansfield Building Society. Outcome: Upheld.
Decision detail
| Reference | DRN-7770338 |
|---|---|
| Decision date | 2018-05-17T00:00:00+00:00 |
| Firm | The Mansfield Building Society |
| Product | PPI |
| Claim type | PPI mis-selling |
| Outcome | Upheld |
| Remedy | MBS must: (A) pay Mr M all amounts he paid monthly for the PPI; (B) add simple interest at 8% per annum from the date of each premium payment to settlement date; (C) deduct any successful claims Mr M made under the policy; and (D) provide written details of calculations. Tax must be deducted from interest as required by HMRC. |
Summary
Mr and Mrs M complained that Mansfield Building Society mis-sold them a regular premium MPPI policy in December 1998. Mr M had a significant pre-existing medical condition at the time of purchase. The ombudsman found that MBS failed to properly inform Mr M that his condition would be excluded from coverage, either on the application form he signed or through the eight-page leaflet MBS claimed to have provided. With a significant time gap between any mortgage meeting and when Mr M actually signed the PPI form, and no written record of discussions, the ombudsman concluded Mr M would not have purchased the policy had he been properly informed. The complaint was upheld and MBS was ordered to refund all premiums paid plus interest.
The Ombudsman's reasoning
The ombudsman applied the balance of probabilities test and found that MBS failed to provide proper and sufficient information about medical exclusions on a non-advised sale. Although MBS argued the exclusion was explained in a leaflet, the ombudsman found no persuasive evidence the leaflet was given to Mr M, and even if it was, burying a significant term on page four of an eight-page technical document was insufficient. The ombudsman rejected MBS's arguments that an interviewer would have explained the exclusions, noting the significant time gap between any such meeting and when Mr M actually signed the PPI form, and the absence of any written record. The ombudsman concluded that had Mr M been properly informed of the exclusion for his pre-existing condition, he would not have purchased the policy.
How this compares
| Group | Decisions | Uphold rate |
|---|---|---|
| The Mansfield Building Society, all decisions | 8 | 31% |
| PPI mis-selling, all decisions | 85,732 | 25% |
| PPI, all decisions | 85,316 | 27% |
Source
Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website