1990s PPI Claim Problems

magpiecottage

You can ask the same question as many times as you like on different threads.

However, Moneyineptitude's answer is correct. The insurer is only responsible for meeting the terms of the contract and the lender is only responsible for providing the money to pay for the contract.

The one responsible for selling the contract would be the one who missold it.

In theory, it might be possible to demonstrate a joint and several liability on the part of the lender under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

However, to do that you would need to prove that the product had been missold to you in law, not merely some guideline that existed at the time. You would also need to prove it in court.

The only legislation I can think of that might help you in this regard is the Misrepresentation Act but, unless you have evidence, it would be a non-starter.

In addition, if the sale was more than 15 years ago, then they could rely on Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980 to "timebar" the complaint. As it is over thirteen years since the 1990s ended, I suspect that would end stop your case even if it got that far.

dazza12

magpiecottage wrote: »

In addition, if the sale was more than 15 years ago, then they could rely on Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980 to "timebar" the complaint. As it is over thirteen years since the 1990s ended, I suspect that would end stop your case even if it got that far.

Wouldn't Section 32(c) of the same act override this? If Section 14(b) applied, many more PPI complaints would be thrown out if over 6 years old. In fact, when complaints have gone to the small claims court, 32(c) has often been used to counteract any 14(b) defence by a lender.

In my own case, I've got two complaints in with lenders from periods in the 1990s. The complaints are being investigated, with no hint that they're going to use Section 14(b) to suggest a timebar.

-taff

Are your lenders companies that weren't regulated and where the underwriters have also gone bust?

If PPI is not a legal issue, then the small claims court will be useless anyway.

[Deleted User]

-taff wrote: »

If PPI is not a legal issue, then the small claims court will be useless anyway.

It hasn't stopped others from going the court route, albeit unsuccessfully.

dazza12

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

It hasn't stopped others from going the court route, albeit unsuccessfully.

Is your implication here that nobody has been successful taking PPI complaints to court?

[Deleted User]

dazza12 wrote: »

Is your implication here that nobody has been successful taking PPI complaints to court?

Not at all, but the vast majority have lost so it's a gamble not worth taking in my humble opinion.

dazza12

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

Not at all, but the vast majority have lost so it's a gamble not worth taking in my humble opinion.

Do you have the figures to support the 'vast majority' claim? I'm not arguing that you are wrong, but I like to separate opinion and fact.

It's been my impression from anecdotal evidence only (so, opinion mainly) that the court route tends to edge in favour of the claimant. More commonly I hear of instances where banks have settled as soon as a hearing date has been agreed in order to avoid their costs increasing considerably.

-taff

dazza12 wrote: »

In my own case, I've got two complaints in with lenders from periods in the 1990s. The complaints are being investigated, with no hint that they're going to use Section 14(b) to suggest a timebar.

Again, are your lenders companies that weren't regulated and where the underwriters have also gone bust?

[Deleted User]

dazza12 wrote: »

Do you have the figures to support the 'vast majority' claim? I'm not arguing that you are wrong, but I like to separate opinion and fact.

I don't have time just now to search for the figures, but Dunstonh is online and may be able to provide more authoritative information.

dazza12

-taff wrote: »

Again, are your lenders companies that weren't regulated and where the underwriters have also gone bust?

No, but the indication was that 14(b) is a good enough reason to deny a complaint. 32(c) in most cases overrides this.

This had gone off topic, and like most discussion topics people do like to give their own view. In my case I wanted to point out that if a lender relies on 14(b) it doesn't mean the end of the road.

EDIT - after reading properly, Santander is one of my lenders. GE weren't regulated, so yes to the first part, but Genworth still exists so no to the second part.