Legal & General payment protection insurance (PPI), also known as loan repayment insurance, credit insurance or credit protection insurance was designed so that the borrower could make repayments to Legal & General if they were unable to earn income to service the debt. This shouldn't be confused with income protection insurance which is not usually attached to a debt. PPI was widely sold by Legal & General as an add-on to the loan or an overdraft product.
Legal & General PPI usually covered payments for a minimum of 12 months, this gave the borrower enough time to find alternative means of making repayments such as going back to work.
Some Legal & General PPI policies were sold without the consumer even aware that PPI was added onto their loan. Some consumers claim that Legal & General informed them that their application for a loan, credit card or mortgage would be declined if they didn't take out Legal & General payment protection insurance. In some cases this led to fear of losing a loan and the borrower would accept the Legal & General PPI even though they may not of even needed it.
Legal & General may have mis-sold you PPI if any of the below statements are relevant to you at the point of sale:
- Did you feel pressured into purchasing the Legal & General PPI policy?
- A simple assessment of your personal circumstances to determine if PPI was of any benefit to you should have been carried out by Legal & General, with no pressure or hard selling.
- Were you older than the upper age limit for your Legal & General PPI policy?
- If Legal & General had an upper age limit on the PPI policy and you were above this set age, you would not have been covered.
- Was the term of your Legal & General PPI cover shorter than the term of the finance agreement AND did Legal & General not explain that there would be a period of no PPI cover towards the end of your finance agreement?
- If Legal & General did not explain that you would be unprotected for any period of time throughout the finance agreement, you have been mis-sold your Legal & General PPI policy.
- When you were sold your PPI policy by Legal & General, were you unemployed, self-employed or retired?
- If you were unemployed, self-employed or retired when Legal & General sold you your PPI policy, you would not have been covered and therefore the Legal & General PPI policy would have been of no benefit to you.
- Did Legal & General enquire if you had PPI cover elsewhere that would of covered repayments?
- Legal & General should have asked if you had pre-existing PPI cover elsewhere as this would have been sufficient.
- Did you have a pre-existing medical condition at time you were sold your PPI policy by Legal & General?
- If you were ever unable to work throughout the term of your Legal & General PPI policy due to the pre-existing medical condition, you would not have been covered by the Legal & General PPI policy.
- Did Legal & General make you aware that part of your PPI premiums may have been paid as commission?
- The Plevin ruling means that if over 50% of your PPI premiums were paid in commission to Legal & General, you were mis-sold and are due a PPI refund.
- Did Legal & General make you aware of any exclusions or circumstances in which you would not be eligible to make a claim?
- If you weren’t told by Legal & General about the exclusions, or circumstances in which you couldn’t claim, you may have been mis-sold your Legal & General PPI policy.
- Was the total cost of the Legal & General PPI policy clearly explained to you at the point of sale?
- Legal & General should have explained every aspect of any costs relating to your PPI agreement. Failure to do so would be considered a big mis-selling factor.
- Did Legal & General make you aware about cancelling your PPI policy?
- You should have been made aware by Legal & General that you had the right to cancel your PPI policy within the cooling off period.
- Were you aware that Legal & General had added PPI to your agreement?
- If you were not aware PPI had been added to your agreement by Legal & General, it may have been added without your consent or it may have been opt-out box which was not obvious.
- Were you led to believe that the Legal & General PPI policy was compulsory to your finance agreement?
- If a PPI policy was required for the finance agreement, Legal & General should have made you aware that you had the right to shop around OR if you had pre-existing cover elsewhere, Legal & General should not have sold you another PPI policy.
If you have a successful PPI complaint against Legal & General upheld, you would be entitled to a full refund PPI paid to Legal & General, a full refund of any interest charged on the PPI by Legal & General and a compensation interest of 8% per annum on both of those combined.