PPI - Is It Worth It?

[Deleted User]

dunstonh wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with an insurer refusing cover on a pre-existing condition.

OP claims was told condition was covered, but on claiming was informed otherwise. Documentary proof required for mis-sale.

magpiecottage

FlyerZoe wrote: »

A pre-existing condition in which they were told they were covered and they were not when they tried to make a claim in 1993.

The FCA's "DISP" (dispute resolution) rules say that a complaint must be made within six years of the events giving rise to that complaint or, if later, within three years of when the complainant knew, or oughtreasonably to have known that they had cause for complaint.

If the claim was rejected in 1993 then clearly they had the knowledge that they had cause for complaint about 23 years ago - so the three year limit has passed.

Similarly, since they could not have attempted a claim on the policy if it was not already in force, the six year limit has passed.

Subsequent to 1993, A complaint that a policy would not pay out due to a pre-existing condition seems unlikely to succeed since, by their own admission, they knew of this risk.

It is also unlikely that the bank holds any records after all this time.

dunstonh

Moneyineptitude wrote: »

OP claims was told condition was covered, but on claiming was informed otherwise. Documentary proof required for mis-sale.

And, as you suggest, there will almost certainly be no evidence that was ever said.

It may have been said. Or it may have been said that it doesnt stop you having the policy and being able to claim on it for other things but 10-20-30 years on, the memory wont be strong.