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

Decision detail

Summary

Mr O complained that Marsden Building Society mis-sold him two PPI policies taken out with mortgages in 1998 and 2003. The ombudsman found the 1998 policy was not mis-sold as PPI was correctly explained as compulsory for Mr O's mortgage type and was suitable for his circumstances. While the 2003 policy was found to have been probably mis-sold due to inadequate disclosure of a medical condition exclusion, no compensation was awarded because Mr O received over £17,000 in successful unemployment claims against approximately £1,500 in premiums paid, meaning he was financially better off with the policy than without it.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

For the 1998 policy, the ombudsman found no mis-sale because Marsden correctly informed Mr O that PPI was compulsory for his mortgage type, the policy appeared suitable for his circumstances with no exclusions affecting him, and better information would not have changed his decision. For the 2003 policy, while the ombudsman agreed it was probably mis-sold due to inadequate disclosure of the medical condition exclusion, no compensation is warranted because Mr O received substantially more in benefits (£17,000) than he paid in premiums (£1,500), meaning he was not financially disadvantaged by the mis-sale.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website