Santander ppi rejection because claim is time barred

magpiecottage

Wong21 wrote: »

My wife had PPI added to 2 store cards she had and Santander are trying to use time barring as a defence as I have started a claim through the courts.

Starting a court case does not invoke a timebar (although I suppose it shows you knew you had possible grounds for complaint).

However, once legal procedings have started, FOS will normally defer to the court unless both parties agree to stay proceedings so that FOS can look at it (or the court itself tells them to refer it to FOS)

Given that firms seem to have far more success in court than at FOS, it seems unlikely that the lender would agree to a stay.

Wong21

I have already been in court once Santander sent a barrister from London as I had judgement as they never filed a defence etc in time . They then tried to have my claim struck out on the grounds I never filled out the claim form properly , they were unsuccessful , and I was aloud to resubmit the the form to them and the court . The barrister tried then to claim costs against me , I pointed out to the Judge that this should of been dealt in a small claim court and was purposely kept in a open court by there solicitors with the sole purpose of building costs up and getting me to pay for them . The judge reserved the costs until we go back to court for a summary judgement hearing . In our case the PPI was not miss old to us it was added to the account without our knowledge and also as the high court decided around 2010/2011 that PPI was miss sold

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

. In our case the PPI was not miss old to us it was added to the account without our knowledge

What evidence do you have to support this accusation?

You do realise that the vast majority of people who make this kind of complaint have simply forgotten that they agreed to it? It's a myth (sponsored by claim companies) that PPI was randomly added without the knowledge and permission of customers.

Does the Bank not have an agreement signed by you? How will you counter their evidence?

I think this is likely going to be very costly for you. I assume your complaint has already been rejected by both the Bank and the Ombudsman?

dunstonh

In our case the PPI was not miss old to us it was added to the account without our knowledge and also as the high court decided around 2010/2011 that PPI was miss sold

The high court has made no such decision at any time. If you are referring to the high court case the banks had against the regulator, that was not about PPI. Although its outcome certainly had an impact on PPI but only on the basis of what complaints could and could not be considered.

What evidence do you have to present the court that it was added without your knowledge?

Wong21

Santander has the original agreement with the box ticked that we did not want PPI on one account , they have said there was a telephone conversation between my wife and them with my wife asking for PPI ,but have not got this recording to back it up . Also as for no court judgement on PPI , when we were in court the Santander barrister brought up that PPI was not miss sold and the judge remaindered her that a higher court than the one we were in had decided PPI was miss sold , so do not use that as a defence

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

the judge remaindered her that a higher court than the one we were in had decided PPI was miss sold , so do not use that as a defence

Errr, the judge was wrong!
There has been no court case which determined that all PPI was mis-sold! If that had been the case, then all PPI would have had to be refunded and no one would have to complain!

I have no explanation as to how the Judge would make this mistake, nor why the Santander lawyer allowed this to pass unchallenged.

As for your case, the Bank may have no recording of the telephone conversation adding your PPI, but what evidence do you have that the conversation did NOT take place? As the accuser, the onus is on you to provide evidence of wrong-doing.

Wong21

You surprise me to say a judge is wrong as they are more qualified in law than you are !! That's why they are judges . As for my evidence there is a signed document stating we did not want PPI there was no telephone conversation , how can I prove there was no conversation when there was not one in the first place . Correct me if I am wrong if you want to prove some body has received a letter you have to provide proof of postage and also conversations you have over the phone with companies and are legally bidding they are recorded and as Santander called my wife to start charging PPI you would think they would of recorded it to make it legal !!! Or I am wrong like the judge .

dunstonh

Santander has the original agreement with the box ticked that we did not want PPI on one account , they have said there was a telephone conversation between my wife and them with my wife asking for PPI ,but have not got this recording to back it up

That all swings the balance of probability towards Santander as premiums would not have started until after the phone call and the paperwork that does exist supports that.

Also as for no court judgement on PPI , when we were in court the Santander barrister brought up that PPI was not miss sold and the judge remaindered her that a higher court than the one we were in had decided PPI was miss sold , so do not use that as a defence

The judge is wrong. It will either be brought up in writing to the judge or the defence are leaving it in to give them grounds for appeal should they lose the case.

I suggest you read up on the case and you will realise that it made no ruling on PPI as a product or the sale process of PPI. It was about whether the FSA had the ability to force the banks to review pre-regulation cases. The court found that the FSA did have that ability.

You surprise me to say a judge is wrong as they are more qualified in law than you are !

The judge may be qualified in law but he wont be knowledgeable about every decision placed in every court in the land.

As for my evidence there is a signed document stating we did not want PPI there was no telephone conversation , how can I prove there was no conversation when there was not one in the first place .

You signed a document saying you didnt want it. However, a later call took place where you agreed it and it was added on the basis of that call.

Correct me if I am wrong if you want to prove some body has received a letter you have to provide proof of postage and also conversations you have over the phone with companies and are legally bidding they are recorded and as Santander called my wife to start charging PPI you would think they would of recorded it to make it legal !!! Or I am wrong like the judge .

There is no requirement to record calls. UK law is based on the accuser persuading a judge that their side of events occurred. The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges. You could have had the call and are now telling lies. you could have had the letter but threw it away and cant remember. When the PPI premiums started, why did you not query it then?

i admire that you are willing to take the risk and costs on such a weak case. You may get lucky but it seems such a gamble and the odds are against you.

[Deleted User]

Wong21 wrote: »

You surprise me to say a judge is wrong as they are more qualified in law than you are !

You actually know nothing about my qualifications, but I'm saying that the statement that you recounted was wrong because it is wrong. There has been no court case determining that all PPI was mis-sold. .

Wong21 wrote: »

As for my evidence there is a signed document stating we did not want PPI

That is only evidence that you did not want PPI at the time of the original sale , not that you weren't later persuaded to change your mind.

Wong21 wrote: »

there was no telephone conversation , how can I prove there was no conversation

You can't. So you have no evidence and the Bank has none. This means any judgement has to decide on the balance of probabilities. This goes in the Bank's favour, since many people did later add PPI during the course of a telephone call.

Wong21 wrote: »

Or I am wrong like the judge .

I'd describe you as misguided and ill-informed.

Wong21

Do you work or work with Santander as you seem to be arguing for there case rather a lot instead of letting a court make the decision , that's what they are for . Firstly you have said I may be lying about the conversation , that is why they are taped so people cannot lie that they never took place . Now as this was to start a new contract to take out PPI you would think Santander would of recorded it so to prove we agreed to take out PPI . If they had done this we would not be able to say it was added on . If you in person agree to say any insurance without looking over the details with no paper work you are a brave person . Now as I understand Santander has to prove we agreed to PPI , I think if we were being unreasonable by asking for our added on PPI payments back and you were right I think the banks would have carried on with there fight (BBA and Nemo Personal Finance Ltd ) and appealed the High Court Payment Protection Insurance Judgement .