I think Abbey are putting on a hard face about providing proof and evidence of claims. I cannot say for sure why this is, but keep asking for the proof you need - and yes, that includes the MIG.(posted 8545 days ago)The MIG policy document may well be relevant to Abbey's claim (especially if it's an older MIG, pre-1993) whether it claimed on the policy or not. If it didn't claim, why not - why didn't it mitigate the claim in this obvious way? If it did, why aren't you the beneficiary? Can it prove that the MIG clearly states that you, the borrower, will obtain no protection whatsoever from this insurance?
I know this stuff's hard to endure, but the less keen the lender is to provide evidence, the weaker its case against you becomes. It would almost certainly forfeit costs in court if it fell foul of the Civil Procedure Rules, which discourage the 'stronger' party from refusing to provide documentation upon which it is relying. (Hey, why don't we all hire ourselves top barristers?!!) No lender wants to take a person to court and lose on costs. If you can get your head around this, the whole thing does become a lot easier to bear.
Don't waste your energies worrying. Channel energy effectively elsewhere. Tell your MP that Abbey won't properly prove its claim. Tell him about EDM 1102 - a recent motion by Mike Hancock CBE MP which censures Abbey over this very issue. Email Mike Hancock about it. He's on your side. So are a number of Labour MPs.
By the way, I too have received the somewhat crude and patronising question along the lines of, you had a mortgage, so how can you dispute the claim for mortgage shortfall? As Lee points out in the thread (I think ?two) below this one, there are a lot of documents which need to be produced by a lender before a claim is proven.
I have seen you post a lot of emails on this Q&A board. I know the feeling! Good luck, and please contact me privately if you need a shoulder.