PPI sold through car dealer

magpiecottage

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

IMO you have a better chance of winning the lottery - if you were suing me my defence would be that you are out of time ie longer than 6 years.

Simply being more than six years since it was sold won't stop a court action in itself. You need to show it was also more than three years since the claimant ought to have known they had cause for action.

However, if it is more than fifteen years ago they can timebar it regardless.

Also, a court will look at the legality of the agreement, not what it considers "fair and reasonable".

If it was taken out on or after 14 January 2005, FOS may look at the complaint but if it was before that then it is unlikely to be able to.

Gordon_B_2

Why out of time?
If it was mis-sold 2, 3,6,10 years ago it was mis-sold, why would or should there be a time related "get me out ".
You know the bottom line with all of these cases is the fact that the hard sell of these products was encouraged by the Insurance companies, the fact that the offered substansial comission and held training courses, where they encouraged lenders to imply that it was a compusory part of any loan.
I know this because I have been told by 2 people who worked for loan companies.
Should be made simpler, if you had PPI included in any loan before the alarm bells were rung then a refund should be due by default, only exclusion if the product and load were not sold together.

jonesMUFCforever

Gordon_B wrote: »

Why out of time?
If it was mis-sold 2, 3,6,10 years ago it was mis-sold, why would or should there be a time related "get me out ".
You know the bottom line with all of these cases is the fact that the hard sell of these products was encouraged by the Insurance companies, the fact that the offered substansial comission and held training courses, where they encouraged lenders to imply that it was a compusory part of any loan.
I know this because I have been told by 2 people who worked for loan companies.
Should be made simpler, if you had PPI included in any loan before the alarm bells were rung then a refund should be due by default, only exclusion if the product and load were not sold together.

It is because he is not claiming against a bank or large financial institution but a personal trader or ltd car company.
Why claim now and not 5 10 15 years ago?
Can you prove your claim?
If not you are wasting your time.

dunstonh

If the dealer who purportedly sold the policy is no longer there in that business, what if he is still there but running a different business, could not a claim be made against him personally?

If the PPI was sold post 2005 and the dealer was a sole trader then they carry the liability for life. If the dealer was a limited company then they carry no personal liability but you can refer your case to the FSCS. If it was pre Jan 2005 (the date regulation started) then its game over.

Another thing I struggle understanding, to my way of thinking whoever sold the policy must have been acting in agreement with the insurance company or at the very least the insurer must have some control over who sells its products, so the PPI was always sold with the consent of the insurer.

The issue is not about the product. it is about the way it was sold. Hence why the seller is responsible.

dunstonh

If it was mis-sold 2, 3,6,10 years ago it was mis-sold, why would or should there be a time related "get me out ".

timebars exist in all walks of life. It is to prevent people making spurious claims and to reflect that proving things gets more difficult as time goes on.

Should be made simpler, if you had PPI included in any loan before the alarm bells were rung then a refund should be due by default, only exclusion if the product and load were not sold together.

So, you wish to penalise those that sold the product correctly and consumers that bought it through choice. In other words take the stance that everyone is guilty. That is not how the law works.

magpiecottage

Gordon_B wrote: »

the bottom line with all of these cases is the fact that the hard sell of these products was encouraged by the Insurance companies, the fact that the offered substansial comission and held training courses, where they encouraged lenders to imply that it was a compusory part of any loan.

This is not the bottom line because although you say

Gordon_B wrote: »

I know this because I have been told by 2 people who worked for loan companies.

So you can tell us hearsay (not evidence) about two companies out the very many out there.

So you can come here and rant but it will not further your cause.

Gordon_B_2

So you can come here and rant but it will not further your cause.

Sorry if I come over as ranting, it's not intended, re-reading what I posted I realise I should have read it before I posted it.
There are parts where I have not clarified adequately, as far as hearsay's concerned well any re-itteration of anothers words can be classed as such, doesn't mean it shouldn't be repeated or make it any less true.
In truth I do have an imbedded mis-trust of Insurance Compaies -(the only gamblers that can compensate themselves when the lose).
Conversations such as this I think are healthy and can often lead to enlightenment.

magpiecottage

Gordon_B wrote: »

as far as hearsay's concerned well any re-itteration of anothers words can be classed as such, doesn't mean it shouldn't be repeated or make it any less true.

Or any more true.

The reality is, to support your complaint they would have to make a statement to that effect to FOS themselves AND it would have to relate to the lender you are complaining about.

You may mistrust insurance companies. However, it is a highly regulated industry. Regulation has been in place for over three hundred years to ensure that it cannot be used as a form of gambling. In particular, you can only insure yourself against the losses you will suffer in the event of the insured peril coming to pass and you can only claim once for it. If you have more than one policy covering it, they will only pay out once between them.

Insurance companies do make a profit. They need to make a profit - otherwise they would not be there to pay claims when needed - and nobody would be willing to run them if they were not paid to do so.

dunstonh

There are parts where I have not clarified adequately, as far as hearsay's concerned well any re-itteration of anothers words can be classed as such, doesn't mean it shouldn't be repeated or make it any less true

And a lot of hearsay is complete rubbish. Some will be based on very limited info. Some may be valid. However, you cannot measure all on that basis.

Most MPPI complaints are rejected. But you want them to be auto paid out. So, how is that fair?

antrobus

Gordon_B wrote: »

Why out of time?
If it was mis-sold 2, 3,6,10 years ago it was mis-sold, why would or should there be a time related "get me out "....

For one thing: Limitation Act 1980
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/58