Reclaim PPI from Renault Financial Services (now RCI)

Nasqueron

ROZZY1 wrote: »

Hi no-loyalty. Do not be deterred....

I took out car finance in December 2004. I received an initial reply in July 2014 stating that RCI could not uphold the complaint as their ppi selling was robust and my policy included an unambiguous cancellation clause. I never received any policy documentation, only my finance agreement. I would have left it at that but then I received a further letter at the beginning of August asking me to resend a copy of the agreement (that they has incidentally sent a copy back to me and obviously already received) together with copies of bank statements covering the period in question showing the payments. All this information I sent to them; only for them then to send me another letter in September which was an exact replica of the first letter they sent. Clearly they have not looked into my complaint properly or acknowledged the fact that they requested the additional information from me in the first instance.

I have referred this to the FOS but as the policy was taken out 16 days prior to the ppi regulations they may not be able to help.

I am still on their case though.....

Unfortunately if the sale was not regulated the firm can reject it and FOS won't be able to help as soon as they see it was pre-regulation.

ROZZY1

The sale may not have been regulated, but they are regulated now and this includes how they handle ppi complaints/claims.

If I had only received the first letter rejecting the claim I would have probably left it at that, however by them then sending me another letter requesting all the information only to send me a copy of the first letter they sent me clearly shows that they have not investigated this claim properly and this is there standard response.

They need to take claims seriously.

magpiecottage

FOS can look at a pre regulation complaint if the firm complained about voluntarily submits to its jurisdiction or if it was a member of a predecessor scheme.

In practice for car finance, this would mean subscribing to the General Insurance Standards Council's code of practice. The GISC tried to make this a closed shop failed.

Claims are taken seriously - by the insurer, not the seller. This is because a claim is about receiving the benefits the policy provides because you have suffered a misfortune that the policy covers.

What you have done is complain because you believe the seller did something it should not have done (or did not do something it should have).

A complaint must be made to whoever is responsible for that failing. If it is that you believe the policy was missold, then it is the seller that is liable, not the insurer or the lender - unless they actually sold it to you or one of their representatives did.

Generally that is the car dealer, not the manufacturer or its finance arm - although in a few cases the commercial relationship between them meant that they (or the insurer) is responsible. This is more common from 14 January 2005 onwards when general insurance, including PPI became regulated by law.

From what you say, it sounds like Renault decided to double check that your plan really did commence at the end of 2004 and not early in 2005 but found that it did.

That being so, they seem entitled to tell FOS that, regardless of whether it is actually responsible for the sale of the policy, it was at a tem when it had no jurisdiction.

So you may be successful but it would be wise not to get your hopes up and not to stress out about it.

Nasqueron

ROZZY1 wrote: »

The sale may not have been regulated, but they are regulated now and this includes how they handle ppi complaints/claims.

If I had only received the first letter rejecting the claim I would have probably left it at that, however by them then sending me another letter requesting all the information only to send me a copy of the first letter they sent me clearly shows that they have not investigated this claim properly and this is there standard response.

They need to take claims seriously.

I think you missed the point I was making.

The issue with PPI relates to selling (or miss-selling) not what happened after the sale
If your purchase was before regulation started then the regulations do not apply to them so they can dismiss your complaint and as per above, unless they agree to look at a pre-regulation complaints then the FOS can't do anything

Look at it like this:

Imagine you drove down a road with a 40mph limit at 40mph
The next week the council changed it to 30mph limit
They then issued you with a fine for doing 40mph

Would you accept that ticket or fight it?

dunstonh

The sale may not have been regulated, but they are regulated now and this includes how they handle ppi complaints/claims.

That is not correct. They have to deal with post regulated complaints under the FCA regulated complaints process but they do not have to deal with pre-regulation complaints that way. Although they can volunteer to do so.

They need to take claims seriously.

You are not claiming. You are complaining.

Fish10012

Hello,

I have recently received a reply to my complaint about the mis-selling of PPI from RCI Financial Services - they rejected my claim saying,

"...we have come to the conclusion that our procedures for the sale of this type of Agreement were robust; and based on the answers provided in your PPI questionnaire, we do not feel these procedures were deviated from in any way."

It goes on to mention their "unambiguous cancellation policy" Having read through this thread I have noticed posters have received similar responses. Although some posters have had a successful complaint against RCI I haven't been able to work out whether I should pursue my claim or just accept their rather firm, "NO"

My own personal circumstances are:

I bought a Nissan from a dealership in August 2001 and paid by taking out a financial agreement which included PPI and was payable by monthly direct debit. I cancelled the policy in November 2003 when I moved house and paid off the remaining amount. The dealership has since closed down so I was unable to contact them directly.

I contacted RCI Financial Services in March 2016 to make a claim stating that I felt the policy had been mis-sold due to it not being made clear that the PPI was optional and no discussion taking place as to whether I needed the insurance at the time. (It turns out I didn't as I had a private income protection policy and also my work would pay me sick pay for a substantial period of time) At the time, as with many people, PPI seemed to be a part of the system and I took it out as part of the agreement without really understanding whether I needed it or not - it seemed the 'safe' option.

As PPI came into the public domain, I have made claims against a bank and a couple of credit card companies citing the same reasons - a) it not being clear that PPI was optional and b) no discussion about my own needs. ALL other claims have been successful.

I am therefore a little unsure as to why RCI have rejected this claim as my reasons were the same and it doesn't appear that RCI were acting in any way differently to any of the other companies at the time.

Other posters have suggested that as the dealership has closed then I won't be able to get anywhere. I also don't really understand this as I had an EGG card around the same time - They no longer exist but I was still able to claim against the company who took on their business. Nissan obviously still exist and my agreement was with their financial services (now RCI) and not direct with the dealer anyway.

I would be very grateful if anyone could advise me as to whether to pursue this with RCI, go to the Financial Ombudsman or give up on it altogether.

Thanks in advance,

Fish

Nearlyold

Can you just clarify was PPI attached to the Credit Agreement and you paid one direct debit (finance and PPI together) or did you pay for the PPI separately a DD to an insurer?

-taff

See post 12

dunstonh

Other posters have suggested that as the dealership has closed then I won't be able to get anywhere. I also don't really understand this as I had an EGG card around the same time - They no longer exist but I was still able to claim against the company who took on their business. Nissan obviously still exist and my agreement was with their financial services (now RCI) and not direct with the dealer anyway.

The dealer sold the policy. Not Nissan. The complaint is not about the product. It is about the sale.

no_loyalty

My PPI was attached to my credit agreement and I made one monthly payment, however when I sent copies of my bank statements to RFS they subsequently rejected my claim and advised that the payments would come out as 2 separate enter ties, in June 2015 I sent them a copy of the RFS PPI master policy I had. I never received another response from RFS, should I resurrect this claim or will it be a waste of time?