My right to see MIG : LUSENET : Repossession : One Thread

After several letters from me to DLA asking to see a copy of the MIG which was mis-sold to me, I still have had no joy. I have quoted the Civil Procedure Rules and just last week got a solicitor to write on my behalf. DLA are still insisting that they are under no obligation to show me this as it is between the building society(Abbey National) and their insurers. I cant help wondering why, if everything's as it should be why they dont just send me a copy to shut me up!

Does anyone know if I am legally able to see this document and if so how I should proceed?

-- Joanna Berry (, October 17, 2000


This seems to be the best kept secret around. Like you, I would love some professional opinions on this. What I was told (a) at time of sale of the MIG and (b) in recent weeks, are two completely different narratives. But the recent court case where the insurer dropped the MIG claim at the eleventh hour, after the court asked for further documentaion, is possibly illuminating. How old is your MIG? I think the older the MIG, the more misleading is the wording (and the sales pitch which accompanied it). Some accompanying documents (see the letter on this site 'explaining' the purposes of a MIG in, I think, 1991) appear to be actually negligent.

-- Eleanor Scott (, October 17, 2000.

Thanks for your advice. The mortgage indemnity was taken out in 1992 with National & Provincial.

-- Joanna Berry (, October 18, 2000.

My mother paid a fortune for legal advice which told me that I had no right to see the MIG policy (1994)...and a debt counselling service (joke) took my hard earned money and also failed to get a copy(1995). It's a no-hoper I think, because they are bound to be legally questionable the older they are. When they were drafted, repossessions as we all experienced were virtually unheard of. Lenders will not voluntarily set themselves up for potential class action suits by releasing any MIG policy to scrutiny. We need a mole!

-- Too scared to say (, November 07, 2000.

But there is a corollary to this. If a lender is acting in conjuction with the insurer, or if the insurer is acting alone under the right of subrogation, then if and when they issue a writ they will have to supply the MIG to show that they indeed have the right to claim the money from the ex borrower under terms of that specific MIG.

If the lender is acting alone, then the ex borrower can insist that the lender prove that it mitigated the loss by claiming on the MIG. The lender again would have to produce the MIG in evidence, to show whether this were possible or not.

Q.E.D.: If the lender (and/or) isn't prepared to produce the MIG, then it cannot be planning court proceedings.

In my humble opinion.

-- Eleanor Scott (, November 28, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ