Perrys Motor Sales Ltd- Mis-sale of car finance PPI

rachs36

I decided recently to pursue a claim for my father after discovering he had been pressured into taking out PPI on a credit agreement for the purchase of a car in 2007. I have details on payments etc that were made and when it was paid off. My dad not being too savvy has since informed me that he told the sales man he would soon be going self employed but that the sales person insisted on PPI in order to take out the policy.
Upshot is i wrote a letter to Perry's highlighting this on behalf of my father and have received a snotty letter back...stating that under the FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 the ombudsman cant consider the complaint if it was more than 6 years of after the event complaint of? I am unsure what exactly this means can anyone help? They are also saying that we knew we had PPI!! I find the tone of the letter unacceptable. Direct quote from the letter " i believe that since 2008 there has been extensive publicity regarding the widespread mis selling of PPI culminating in the outcome of British Bankers association application for a judicial review of the FSA/FOS rules for PPI complaints in April 2011. Following the failure of that challenge there was a further surge in publicity including extensive marketing campaigns on TV and newspapers and by phone,e-mail and mobile phone such that i believe you should have been aware that you had a potential cause for complaint! In these circumstances i propose to reject your complaint on the basis that it is time barred under the rules. Please note that this is my final response in accordance with Disp.1.6.2R"
Anyone have any advice on what to do next??

dunstonh

Upshot is i wrote a letter to Perry's highlighting this on behalf of my father and have received a snotty letter back...stating that under the FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 the ombudsman cant consider the complaint if it was more than 6 years of after the event complaint of?

It is a correct rule but it is not being applied correctly.

It is 6 year from the point of sale but also 3 years from being reasonably aware of an issue (whichever gives the longer period for you to raise the complaint). The FCA require you to have a trigger point to start that 3 year timebar.

So, the dealership is wrong.

Direct quote from the letter " i believe that since 2008 there has been extensive publicity regarding the widespread mis selling of PPI culminating in the outcome of British Bankers association application for a judicial review of the FSA/FOS rules for PPI complaints in April 2011.

That is not a valid activation of the 3 year timebar. Media coverage is insufficient a reason to start the 3 year timebar clock as stated by the FCA in TR13/7 page 20

https://www.fca.org.uk/static/documents/thematic-reviews/tr-13-07.pdf

Complaint stage
Inappropriate time-barring –
citing increased media attention
from January 2007 as the
trigger for the 3 year element
of the time-bar test.

Example
Mr X applied for a car loan in May 2005. He
raised a complaint with the firm in July 2011
that the policy was not suitable as he had good
employee benefits, he was not made aware of
the single premium nature of the PPI or that he
would pay interest on the premium and he was
told the PPI was compulsory. The firm dismissed
the complaint without consideration stating
‘the policy was sold more than 6 years ago... we
believe the latest you should have reasonably
become aware that you had cause for complaint
was in January 2007 because it is evident that
media attention surrounding PPI began in
January 2007 and a reached a high at the end
of 2007.’

As we stated in PS10/12 (p26), we do not
consider such general media attention to be
sufficient to trigger a customer’s awareness or
the consequent 3 year time limit for complaining.


https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/policy-statements/fsa-ps1012

Anyone have any advice on what to do next??

Go straight to the FOS. This dealership are not following the rules and there is no point arguing the toss with them. The FOS will consider the complaint as the FCA say the reason is not allowed.

You should also consider reporting them to the FCA as chances are they have used this reason with others and could be a more widespread issue. The FOS only handle consumer complaints. They do not handle rule breaches. This motor company are breaching FCA rules.

rachs36

The letter does go onto say that they would reconsider the position if i provide additional information/evidence to explain why i would have NO reason to believe that i had potential cause for complaint in relation to this sale during the last three years. So again he's assuming that from extensive publicity my father should have launched a case before now. The letter closes with the line "please also note that the ombudsman has powers to waive these limits in EXCEPTIONAL circumstances (for example if you were physically or mentally incapacitated over the relevant period which may have prevented you bringing a complaint") It is then signed by the finance & Insurance Director.
Thanks for the earlier advice just the whole tone of the letter seems wrong. If you have any further pointers with regards to the above it would be much appreciated.
Would you suggest just completing the financial Ombudsman PPI questionnaire and enclosing any supporting evidence? And also as you say raising the the letter with the FCA?

dunstonh

If you have any further pointers with regards to the above it would be much appreciated.

Just refer it straight to the FOS on the basis that they have incorrectly rejected your complaint as timebarred. That final letter is the trigger you needed to be able to access the FOS.

ould you suggest just completing the financial Ombudsman PPI questionnaire and enclosing any supporting evidence?

Complete the FOS referral form on the website. You dont need to go through the whole thing again. When the FOS contact the firm, the firm will supply everything.

And also as you say raising the the letter with the FCA?

This will not aid your complaint but it will let the FCA know that a regulated firm is not following their guidelines. It may help others that have received the same rejection as you as the FCA can order a firm to review all complaints rejected for that reason.

rachs36

As a further note the letter says that before considering the merits of my complaint he has to consider whether it has been brought within the require time period. He references option A: more than 6 years after the event complaint of and then option B: more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought to reasonably to have become aware of) that you had cause for complaint.
Am not sure if the exert in parenthesis is something they have added.
At another point he totally evades my argument about being mis-sold PPI and states " we note the credit agreement supplied to you at the time you purchased the vehicle clearly stated that an element of the credit provided, related to the purchase of the payment protection insurance policy: we note that you provided a copy of some of the sales documentation that details payment insurance. Therefore, we believe that you knew that you had purchased such a policy"
I find this ludicrous. My initial letter didn't dispute the fact that PPI was applied considering i sent in supporting evidence, merely that it was mis-sold.

Nearlyold

rachs36 wrote: »

As a further note the letter says that before considering the merits of my complaint he has to consider whether it has been brought within the require time period. He references option A: more than 6 years after the event complaint of and then option B: more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought to reasonably to have become aware of) that you had cause for complaint.
Am not sure if the exert in parenthesis is something they have added.
At another point he totally evades my argument about being mis-sold PPI and states " we note the credit agreement supplied to you at the time you purchased the vehicle clearly stated that an element of the credit provided, related to the purchase of the payment protection insurance policy: we note that you provided a copy of some of the sales documentation that details payment insurance. Therefore, we believe that you knew that you had purchased such a policy"
I find this ludicrous. My initial letter didn't dispute the fact that PPI was applied considering i sent in supporting evidence, merely that it was mis-sold.

The part in parenthesis is standard and is part of the time bar rules.
As dunstonh says don't bother with contacting Perrys, just get straight onto FOS. If you go to the FOS website and have a look at the Ombudsman decisions you'll see Perrys don't appear to do very well.

National_Debtline

Hi rachs

rachs36 wrote: »

As a further note the letter says that before considering the merits of my complaint he has to consider whether it has been brought within the require time period. He references option A: more than 6 years after the event complaint of and then option B: more than three years from the date on which the complainant became aware (or ought to reasonably to have become aware of) that you had cause for complaint.
Am not sure if the exert in parenthesis is something they have added.

They are quoting the guidance on time limits word for word. The part in parentheses is part of that guidance, not something they have added themselves.

Keep this as simple as possible and take it straight to the FOS, as per dunstonh's advice.


Dennis
@natdebtline


EDIT - cross-posted with nearlyold.

rachs36

i would like to say a big thanks to those who have responded to my first ever post. Very helpful. Will definitely post again.

magpiecottage

Absolutely go to FOS. It is likely to take some time for the matter to be resolved, I'm afraid but it is free for you.