3 Year Time Barred on PPI Claim

ROSEPUNKY

Hello all, i would like help with this specific query please.


I have complained to the Nationwide BS in 2013, re: a MPPI policy added to an existing mortgage back in 2002, after i took out an additional mortagage advance. The policy was cancelled in 2009 after a review of my financies.

The Nationwide gave me a rather standard, final response rejection letter.

I took the complaint to the FOS, who have now informed me that they are unable to look into the complaint any further as it is 'time-barred'. By which they mean my complaint was initiated over 3 years after the policy was cancelled.

The 3 year 'time-barring' guidance states;

three years from when the consumer knew, or could reasonably have known, they had cause to complain

The FOS seem adament that the 3 year time bar is initiated when i cancelled the policy. I dont get this at all, i cancelled the policy because they wrote to me saying they were going to increase the charges on it, this prompted me to cancel said policy. To be honest i didnt even realise it was PPI at this time.

How can a mere cancellation = cause to complain?

I am waiting to receive the written response from the FOS, but i am minded to question their above interpretation of the time barring, any advise would be very much appreciated.

roonaldo

What allegations did you make when you complained? If you simply said you didnt know you had it and didnt know it was PPI then this would obviously be false as you knew what it was in 2009. Their logic to time bar would be correct.

ROSEPUNKY

Thanks for that.

My complaint was 2 fold;

1. Mis-sold. The MPPI was an advised sale, it was 'strongly recommended' to us in writing. We took their advice and went with a policy that only covered us for redundancy. My husband has an enhanced policy at work which would have paid us approx. 4 times what the MPPI would have given us. We didnt have any financial need. The nationwide knew all this at the time.

2. Lack of information. We never had key terms, or the policy explained to us, the monthly fee was incorporated into our monthly mortgage payments so not mentioned, we had no letters etc. so little visibility. We cant provide much evidence for this, other than we never realised we had a PPI policy and so as such this 'PPI scandal' passed us by.


A letter in 2009 from the BS saying that they were to increase premiums merely started us asking questions about what this thing was that we had clearly signed up for. We cancelled it as we realised it was unwanted, and expensive. We didnt recognise it as PPI immediately then, it went by other names. We cancelled it, we didnt realise we had cause to complain until much later. The basis of our comaplint was point 1 above, which took time for us to appreciate, as soon as we did we complained.

[Deleted User]

ROSEPUNKY wrote: »

which took time for us to appreciate, as soon as we did we complained.

Three years is too long to "appreciate". I'm afraid.

You've clearly left it too late if FOS themselves (who are usually quite customer friendly)are time-barring you.

Do note that most mortgage PPI complaints are rejected anyhow.

dunstonh

FOS is consumer biased. They would make sure the timebar is fairly applied. 6 years from commencement or 3 years from reasonably being aware of a problem is the rule. cancellation is a very good point to complain. So, the time bar does seem fair as if you had concerns, you would have complained earlier.

We didnt recognise it as PPI immediately then, it went by other names.

name is irrelevant. You didnt think it was mis-sold when you didnt know the name. now you do which makes it look opportunistic. That is likely how it is being viewed.

roonaldo

It does seem a correct time bar from what you have said.

ROSEPUNKY

The policy was cancelled because we didnt want it, it was only latter (i suppose partly due to media coverage) that we realised there was a mis-selling issue.

It is the Nationwide that are asking the FOS to apply the time barring rule, which i see that they are able to do. Apparently some BS's do not apply the time bar rule, as a 'gesture of good faith', and so the FOS are free to judge. Which would have been nice in this case, it would have been good to have seen our case tested on its merits (or otherwise) rather than not even looked at due to this time bar.

[Deleted User]

ROSEPUNKY wrote: »

it would have been good to have seen our case tested on its merits (or otherwise) rather than not even looked at due to this time bar.

Since Nationwide would have had to pay the FOS fee (win or lose) if a FOS referral was continued , it's not really surprising that they have pushed for the time-bar.

I assume Nationwide have already considered your complaint and given you rejection reasons in addition to the time-bar?
As I said earlier, most mortgage PPI complaints are rejected anyhow.

dunstonh

The policy was cancelled because we didnt want it, it was only latter (i suppose partly due to media coverage) that we realised there was a mis-selling issue.

So, at the time, you had no reasons to complain about it. It was only when you realised there was a bandwagon that you thought you would jump on it. That is exactly why time bars exist. it is to prevent abuse of the system. Even after this, it appears from your posts that you dont have a complaint reason.

It is the Nationwide that are asking the FOS to apply the time barring rule, which i see that they are able to do.

it is up to the firm if they wish the time bar to be applied or not.

Apparently some BS's do not apply the time bar rule, as a 'gesture of good faith', and so the FOS are free to judge.

Very rare does that happen. Especially on PPI complaints. In most areas, it is not possible to apply a timebar.

it would have been good to have seen our case tested on its merits (or otherwise) rather than not even looked at due to this time bar.

Statistically, it would likely have failed anyway. Most MPPI complaints do. The complaints system is not there to test cases on merits. it is for those with complaints.