bank won't accept PPI claim ... reclaim from underwriter?

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

I later discovered that it was not suitable, when it came to claiming. This is the same with policies on other credit cards. So after paying for many years thinking it is going to help, when needed it had exclusion clauses for everything. That means it was unsuitable to begin with.

With 'reasonable diligence' - as the Act states - you could have discovered the policy's unsuitability by simply reading it when you took it out. That's the point.

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

With 'reasonable diligence' - as the Act states - you could have discovered the policy's unsuitability by simply reading it when you took it out. That's the point.

No, that's not right. The bank did not make the exclusions clear. Not every exclusion is listed. I still have the T's and C's.

dunstonh

Not every exclusion is listed. I still have the T's and C's.

Have you personally suffered from any of those exclusions? Hypothetical scenarios of where you may not be paid out wont be applicable.

tifo

dunstonh wrote: »

Have you personally suffered from any of those exclusions?

Yes, I personally suffered on my credit cards from exclusions on the PPI policy. This was when the policy was later cancelled by the bank but i'd still paid for many years before that and even while they were excluding payments under the policy. So they were making me pay for something that I couldn't claim on and I kept paying because I wanted them to pay.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

No, that's not right. The bank did not make the exclusions clear. Not every exclusion is listed. I still have the T's and C's.

If that's the case then it's not a mis-selling claim you should be making as the issue is not with the way in which the policy was sold but the performance of the product itself and as such your complaint should be directed to the insurer.

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

If that's the case then it's not a mis-selling claim you should be making as the issue is not with the way in which the policy was sold but the performance of the product itself and as such your complaint should be directed to the insurer.

OK, we're getting somewhere now.

A compliant can be made to the insurer then? That the policy did not perform as promised, i.e. it will pay out under certain circumstances but it then didn't when those circumstances arose. I don't understand how this is not a mis-sale?

I assume that, had the bank accepted my claim under the PPI and paid out, this money would have come from the insurer, maybe through the bank?

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

OK, we're getting somewhere now.

A compliant can be made to the insurer then? That the policy did not perform as promised, i.e. it will pay out under certain circumstances but it then didn't when those circumstances arose. I don't understand how this is not a mis-sale?

I assume that, had the bank accepted my claim under the PPI and paid out, this money would have come from the insurer, maybe through the bank?

It's like any normal insurance complaint ie when you believe your house insurance is covered for flooding and they refuse to pay out due to some technicality not made clear in the policy. It doesn't relate to the conduct of the sales process but the performance of the underlying product which is the insurance itself.

The FSA eluded to this distinction in the Policy Statement when it discussed the liability of brokers and underwriters in PPI mis-selling complaints and who the complaint should properly be directed to - at page 36:

''Insofar as a complaint is about the failings set out in the open letter and our Handbook text we take the view that the ‘matter’ complained of is about the sale of the PPI, as opposed to a complaint about the underlying product. In our opinion, such a complaint is properly directed at the firm who sold the PPI and therefore firms are unlikely to have grounds to forward that complaint on under DISP 1.7.1R.''

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/policy/ps10_12.pdf

tifo

Alpine_Star wrote: »

''Insofar as a complaint is about the failings set out in the open letter and our Handbook text we take the view that the ‘matter’ complained of is about the sale of the PPI, as opposed to a complaint about the underlying product. In our opinion, such a complaint is properly directed at the firm who sold the PPI and therefore firms are unlikely to have grounds to forward that complaint on under DISP 1.7.1R.''

The firm that sold the PPI policy is the credit card provider ...... so we're back to the bank again?

magpiecottage

tifo wrote: »

The firm that sold the PPI policy is the credit card provider ...... so we're back to the bank again?

No - the terms and conditions represent the contract between the consumer and the insurer, not the intermediary (the bank).

If the insurer has failed to meet its obligations, it is a breach of contract by the insurer, not a missale by the intermediary who was entitled to assume the contract did what it said on the tin.

Alpine_Star

tifo wrote: »

The firm that sold the PPI policy is the credit card provider ...... so we're back to the bank again?

You've misunderstood.

What the paragraph means is that complaints about the sale of the product are properly directed at the seller, implying that complaints about the product itself should be directed at the insurer. Read the 2 preceding pages to the paragraph to understand the context.

So whoever sold you the policy or provided the credit card it was attached to are irrelevant.

This also means that for the purposes of limitations the clock began ticking from the point the insurer refused your claim on the policy and not when it was originally taken out.