Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Mr Clive
    • By Mr Clive 29th May 17, 9:56 AM
    • 10Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Mr Clive
    MBNA: Time barred - HELP NEEDED!
    • #1
    • 29th May 17, 9:56 AM
    MBNA: Time barred - HELP NEEDED! 29th May 17 at 9:56 AM
    Hello People:

    Apologies if this has been asked before.

    What is the best way to respond to a rejection regarding being time barred?

    MBNA have acknowledged I had PPI but rejected it due to:

    (1) Having written to me in 2013 and thus made me aware that I had PPI

    (2) Have no obligation to investigate PPI beyond six years after the financial product ended

    Regarding point (1) - I do not recollect receiving any letter from MBNA. I also believe I may challenge this decision by quoting Plevin V Paragon (2014).

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!

    Clive
Page 1
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 29th May 17, 11:49 AM
    • 88,167 Posts
    • 53,388 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #2
    • 29th May 17, 11:49 AM
    • #2
    • 29th May 17, 11:49 AM
    What is the best way to respond to a rejection regarding being time barred?
    You don't. You give up unless the timebar is invalid.
    MBNA have acknowledged I had PPI but rejected it due to:

    (1) Having written to me in 2013 and thus made me aware that I had PPI

    (2) Have no obligation to investigate PPI beyond six years after the financial product ended

    Regarding point (1) - I do not recollect receiving any letter from MBNA. I also believe I may challenge this decision by quoting Plevin V Paragon (2014).

    MBNA are known to apply the timebar and what you have written suggets a valid timebar exists.

    Plevin does not result in your complaint being reopened and gives you no rights to challenge the timebar.

    Plevin applies to rejected complaints and where the commission is in excess of 50% of the premium paid and would see any excess over the 50% refunded.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Mr Clive
    • By Mr Clive 29th May 17, 12:17 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Mr Clive
    • #3
    • 29th May 17, 12:17 PM
    • #3
    • 29th May 17, 12:17 PM
    Thank you for your insight.

    The claim is likely to worth quite a sum of money so I am not planning on giving up easily. I might do the unthinkable and let one of the claims companies have crack at it as they claim to be able to recover monies in these circumstances.

    Does anyone in this forum have experience with MBNA and time barring? From what I can gather MBNA play hard ball?

    I have done some more reading up this morning and the six years appears to be a time limit for record keeping. As they have already admitted I had PPI (and I can also prove it) then I do not think this comes into play. As for the "we wrote to you in 2013" business, it is very subjective as it all revolves around when I should have "reasonably become aware of it".

    Clive
    Last edited by Mr Clive; 29-05-2017 at 12:22 PM.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 29th May 17, 12:31 PM
    • 88,167 Posts
    • 53,388 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #4
    • 29th May 17, 12:31 PM
    • #4
    • 29th May 17, 12:31 PM
    I might do the unthinkable and let one of the claims companies have crack at it as they claim to be able to recover monies in these circumstances.
    Wouldnt make the slightest bit of difference. And in fact, you could end up being charged by the CMC for wasting their time.

    The CMCs post the complaint to the same place you did yours. The same people at MBNA handle the complaint. It uses the exact same free of charge process. All a CMC does it put a stamp on the envelope containing your complaint. They have no ability to circumvent the law or FCA guidelines on complaints.

    A timebar is a legal mechanism. It is not a rejection of your complaint. It is them exercising their legal right to refuse to even consider your complaint as you are out of time.

    A CMC has no ability to overrule a timebar. Only the FOS does and even then it's only if the time bar has been applied incorrectly or there are extreme mitigating reasons that can be used to explain the whole period of the delay (which tends to be only incapacity or death of a direct family member).

    I have done some more reading up this morning and the six years appears to be a time limit for record keeping.
    No. There is no 6 year rule applying to record keeping. It is a guide to what is considered a suitable timescale for record keeping but companies are free to do what they believe is correct. You are getting the wrong things mixed up.

    As they have already admitted I had PPI (and I can also prove it) then I do not think this comes into play. As for the "we wrote to you in 2013" business, it is very subjective as it all revolves around when I should have "reasonably become aware of it".
    The 3/6 timebar rule does come into play based on what you have said. Both parts of that timescale have to be met to allow successful timebarring.

    1 - Was the sale of the product more than 6 years ago?
    2 - where you notified more than 3 years ago?

    If both bits are yes, then they can timebar. If either one is answered no, then they cannot timebar.
    If you consider the timebar to be wrongly applied and you are still within 6 months of your rejection from MBNA, then you can refer the case to the FOS and they will check the timebar is valid or not.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • societys child
    • By societys child 29th May 17, 4:10 PM
    • 4,207 Posts
    • 4,388 Thanks
    societys child
    • #5
    • 29th May 17, 4:10 PM
    • #5
    • 29th May 17, 4:10 PM
    As they have already admitted I had PPI (and I can also prove it)
    There's nothing wrong with "having PPI" and you don't just claim it back. You need valid reasons why you believe it was mis-sold.
    Out of curiosity, if it hadn't been time-barred, what were your reasons(s) for complaint?

    • Mr Clive
    • By Mr Clive 30th May 17, 7:46 PM
    • 10 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Mr Clive
    • #6
    • 30th May 17, 7:46 PM
    • #6
    • 30th May 17, 7:46 PM
    I fully understand that it's not just about having PPI, in my case I have a solid case for mis-selling. I mentioned the fact that they had confirmed I had PPI to illustrate that this was not being disputed. At present I am having to take their assertion that they wrote to me some years ago as that, just an assertion. I am looking further into what constitutes proof that they sent the letter i.e. does a simple record on their computer system indicate proof of sending? What constitutes receipt? I know legal documents such as parking fines etc.. are "deemed" received after a given lapsed period of days, We are in a bit of a stale mate - they are asserting that they sent notification and I am asserting that I never received it. I need some way of breaking this deadlock.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 30th May 17, 9:06 PM
    • 88,167 Posts
    • 53,388 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #7
    • 30th May 17, 9:06 PM
    • #7
    • 30th May 17, 9:06 PM
    I am looking further into what constitutes proof that they sent the letter i.e. does a simple record on their computer system indicate proof of sending?
    yes it does.

    What constitutes receipt?
    The assumption is that it is received. They dont need to prove it.

    I need some way of breaking this deadlock.
    You cant if the timebar is valid.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
    • Nick_george92
    • By Nick_george92 15th Jun 17, 10:25 PM
    • 5 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Nick_george92
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:25 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 10:25 PM
    No, the Ombudsman will not consider a computer entry as Proof of Postage, even in this case you may be entitled to request proof of receipt. MBNA won't have this and thus you should ask them to consider your complaint.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 15th Jun 17, 11:27 PM
    • 88,167 Posts
    • 53,388 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 11:27 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 11:27 PM
    No, the Ombudsman will not consider a computer entry as Proof of Postage, even in this case you may be entitled to request proof of receipt. MBNA won't have this and thus you should ask them to consider your complaint.
    Originally posted by Nick_george92
    Yes they do. There is no requirement for proof of receipt.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,627Posts Today

8,635Users online

Martin's Twitter