Time Barring on PPI

bodoni

Has anybody successfully taken a lender to court to recover their PPI premiums?

I have just received a response from GE Money stating that my claims are 'time barred' under the limitation act of 1980.

If the FOS is unable to uphold the claim, court action will be my next route.

Previous experiences, tips or advice would be gratefully received.

Thanks in anticipation.

dunstonh

The FOS doesn't use the timebars set down in law but the courts do.

So, iof the law says you are timebarred then what would be your arguments to court to get them to set aside the time bar?

marshallka

dunstonh wrote: »

The FOS doesn't use the timebars set down in law but the courts do.

So, iof the law says you are timebarred then what would be your arguments to court to get them to set aside the time bar?

section 32 limitations act?

bodoni

I have sourced this from the FSA.

Time barring and pre-2005 sales
Some firms argued that complaints about pre-2005 sales should not be included in the scope of our Handbook provisions because they are all or mostly already out of time to be considered on their merits (i.e. they are ‘time barred’ under our existing DISP rules). 33. We disagree with this view. Decisions concerning the time barring of individual complaints are ultimately for the fos to make, but in general terms, our view (as set out in CP10/6 para 3.14), is that general media coverage of the PPI issue, including comments or publications by us, would not be enough to have given a consumer the kind of specific ‘constructive knowledge’ required by DISP’s time limits. 34. Accordingly, while some consumers who bought PPI before January 2005 may, on an assessment of their individual circumstances and events, be deemed to have had appropriate awareness before January 2008, such that they will be out of time by January 2011, our view is that this is unlikely to apply to consumers.

Conclusion on pre-2005 sales
There is nothing in firms’ responses which leads us to consider it necessary to retract from our statement in the open letter concerning pre-2005 sales or to carve out complaints about these sales from the scope of our final provisions. To do either would leave substantially unaddressed the poor handling of a very significant proportion of PPI complaints, and thus the significant potential consumer detriment caused by many of these sales.

The above is set out by the Financial Services Authority in their publication, The assessment and redress of Payment Protection Insurance complaints.

I wondered if this would carry any weight?

magpiecottage

As things stand FOS will overturn a timebar under the Limitation Act although if GE Money can demonstrate it is entitled to timebar under the FSA rules it will do so - provided GE Money asks it to.

At this stage, though, moving the case to FOS seems to be the way forward and likely to involve a long wait.

You have six months from GE Money's letter to get your complaint to FOS but the sooner it gets into the queue the sooner it will reach the front.

roonaldo

GE didnt subscribe to GISC and are not under FOS jurisdiciton for its sales prior to Jan 2005.

If you took it to court, you would need evidence.

bodoni

So by not subscribing to GISC they've got carte blanche to behave as they please without redress from the industry? Sounds like an excuse for sharp practice.

Since the judicial review the pre 2005 jurisdiction maybe less relevant. If there are enough claims prior to 2005 something will have to be done.

marshallka

bodoni wrote: »

So by not subscribing to GISC they've got carte blanche to behave as they please without redress from the industry? Sounds like an excuse for sharp practice.

Even when subscribed they can and do act as they please anyway. The FSA?GISC really have a lot to answer for in that they knew of this a long long long time ago so it would seem and chose to allow it to happen. All in it together comes to mind.

magpiecottage

bodoni wrote: »

So by not subscribing to GISC they've got carte blanche to behave as they please without redress from the industry? Sounds like an excuse for sharp practice.

No - the GISC had a code of practice for its subscribers (I overlooked the fact that GE Money did not subscribe earlier).

However, it was voluntary. If GE Money did not subscribe then its arbitration scheme could not help. FOS acts in lieu of that scheme for those who subscribed to it but not for those that did not.

If there are enough claims prior to 2005 something will have to be done.

Doubtful. It would need a major retrospective change in primary legislation. It was not done for Pension misselling or mortgage endowments and cannot see it happening for PPI.