CPP Pre 2005 - Is It Worth It?

Quarkrad

I wrote to M&S Bank about my pre 2005 payments - they said it was nothing to do with them and suggested I went to CPP. Following a letter to them CPP say they are looking into my case but having spoken to the Ombudsman, who told me that CPP was not regulated pre 2005 and gave me negative response as to my position, I am now thinking is it worth trying to claim pre 2005? My feeling is that the Ombudsman is not concerned pre 2005, M&S certainly are not so why should CPP? Is this a waste of effort?

[Deleted User]

Quarkrad wrote: »

My feeling is that the Ombudsman is not concerned pre 2005, M&S certainly are not so why should CPP? Is this a waste of effort?

It's not that they "aren't concerned", it's the fact that FOS have no jurisdiction over pre-regulation sales of insurance. The CPP refund scheme only covers sales post January 2005 for exactly that reason. Marks &Spencer were the seller of the insurances, but they weren't regulated either.
You'll have to forget about this one, although it's possible CPP may refund for the period after 2005, which is why they are "looking into" your case.

Quarkrad

CPP have looked at the complaint for pre 2005 and have offered 1 years premium (2004 - 2005) and ignored the payments from 1991 - 2004. This looks to me an admission of guilt that there was wrong doing 2004 - 2005 but ignoring from when the policy was taken out in 1991. Their letter states the complaint was about mis-selling from 1991 - 2005 and they have compensated for 2004 - 2005. Strange.

HappyBunny

I had a similar M & S Bank policy from early 1990's to now.

M&S Bank referred me to CPP saying CPP had sold me the policy. CPP wrote and actually upheld my complaint but said pre 2004 they weren't covered by "industry standards" so won't compensate. Had a phone call from Ombudsman yesterday who explained there are two periods pre-2005. If you actually renewed between 2004 and 2005 you may be entitled compensation for that one renewal. If you renewed before 2004 then there was no standard for CPP to comply with and no supervising authority, therefore the Ombudsman rejected my complaint for pre 2005. But I will double-check to see if a renewal did fall in 2004.

[Deleted User]

Quarkrad wrote: »

and ignored the payments from 1991 - 2004. This looks to me an admission of guilt

There is no "guilt", as explained already, there is no liability for pre-2005 sales and they will have paid you for the additional year 2004-5 as a "goodwill gesture".
You have no access to the Ombudsman, so this is all you'll ever receive.

HappyBunny wrote: »

the Ombudsman rejected my complaint for pre 2005.

The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction as it's from a pre-regulatory period, so your complaint hasn't even been considered by FOS.

HappyBunny

The Ombudsman said that CPP were actually covered by a body for 2004 only (cant remember the name/acronym) which is why some people may get compensation for 2004 only if they renewed in that year.

[Deleted User]

HappyBunny wrote: »

The Ombudsman said that CPP were actually covered by a body for 2004 only (cant remember the name/acronym) which is why some people may get compensation for 2004 only if they renewed in that year.

If that's true then it would perhaps explain why "Quarkrad" was paid for that period, but I have seen no information regarding this.