Reclaim against ltd company?

Kirstyf_2

Hi there,

My brother in law called me as he has received a letter from RBS regarding a complaint from a customer re a missold policy. He used to run a second hand car business which closed in 2000. The letter states that he sold a PPI policy in 1997. PPI was on offer but the policy was with RBS. He asked me as I'm a solicitor but I have no professional experience of this type of claim.

He has no records any longer and wanted to know whether it was likely that any premiums could be recoverable from him. He doesn't have any knowledge of the payments made by the customer and didn't receive any of them. I forgot to ask whether he received a referral fee. Logically, if the bank received the premiums they should be the ones reimbursing.

I was wondering whether anyone has heard of the banks sending this type of query and whether he could be held to have sold the policy along with the car?

[Deleted User]

Kirstyf wrote: »

My brother in law called me as he has received a letter from RBS regarding a complaint from a customer re a missold policy. He used to run a second hand car business which closed in 2000. The letter states that he sold a PPI policy in 1997. PPI was on offer but the policy was with RBS.

Any complaint dating from prior to January 14th 2005 doesn't have even to be considered by your brother in law since it is pre-regulation. The fact that his business no longer trades means that he has no personal liability either.

Kirstyf wrote: »

Logically, if the bank received the premiums they should be the ones reimbursing.

No, "logically" the seller of the insurance (not the provider) has liability if the policy was mis-sold.

I'm not sure why the Bank have written to your brother in law about a sale dating back 17 years?

dunstonh

Most car dealers did not become regulated until 14th January 2005. So, they can automatically reject any complaint that relates to a sale prior to that date as being prior to regulation.

if the Limited company no longer exists as a legal entity then technically, he does not even have to respond.

Logically, if the bank received the premiums they should be the ones reimbursing.

No. The complaint is not about the product. It is an allegation that it was sold incorrectly and the seller has the liability for the sale of the product. Not the product provider. This is the same mistake that the person complaining has made by initially going to RBS. RBS have no liability as they did not sell it. Your brother in law did. Providers are required to pass on complaints or refer the person to the seller if they are not liable. Hence why your BIL has been contacted.

However, as said, the liability is with the limited company (not your brother) and if the limited company no longer exists then liability has ended. Plus, it was a pre-regulation sale anyway. He has nothing to be concerned about.

Kirstyf_2

Thank you for the helpful advice, much appreciated. I'm not sure why the bank contacted him either.

dunstonh

I'm not sure why the bank contacted him either.

Because the bank would have him down as the broker for the loan.

magpiecottage

It is possible the bank has given his details as the seller and a claim may come in.

However, there is no personal liability if it was sold by the limited company and, because FOS has no jurisdiction, Section 14B of the Limitation Act 1980 would entitle the seller to reject the complaint as out of time.