Martin on Tv about old refused PPi claims.....help please

vespawho

Hi all,
I watched Martin on Tv a few weeks ago saying if you tried to claim on your PPI and it was refused and you then didn't go to the ombudsmen within the 6 months you can try again?

Im sure he was saying that the ombudsmen has said to many people were put off trying after the bank refused. I thought he said that you had to send the claim into the bank (egg in my case) and start the claim again. They will refuse but you then can send it off to the ombudsmen?

Ive been lazy and had a claims firm do mine as when i tried with egg 2 years ago they refused and i gave up. The firm have been successful on all my loads/cards that had ppi. As I've been self employed most of my life. They even got a successful payout from Egg credit card, the same bank that said my loan would of been covered even though self employed. (it was sent to ombudsmen and they were in my favour.

My question is..... did i miss understand what Martim was saying? as the claims company have not heard of you being able to re submit a claim. they even came on here to try and find info.

Please help!!.....this loan PPi would probably be worth a couple of thousand to me. And it annoys me that they have paid on the credit card but not on the loan.

Many thanks James

Nasqueron

The 6 month time bar is set by the regulator, it is only if the bank agrees to look at it again would you be able to get around it, you can send in a new complaint but they would be within their rights to simply point to the time-bar - in addition before you do, ensure you have in writing that the claims firm are no longer acting for you or they will claim a % of any refund

dunstonh

I watched Martin on Tv a few weeks ago saying if you tried to claim on your PPI and it was refused and you then didn't go to the ombudsmen within the 6 months you can try again?

That is not correct. He may have said it but that is not how it works. You are not the first to suggest he said this but there is no evidence to suggest that the FOS are overruling the FCA in respect of the complaints process. It would be a big deal if it was.

Im sure he was saying that the ombudsmen has said to many people were put off trying after the bank refused.

There hasnt been anything in the financial press or FOS to support that statement. The FOS does not have the ability to reopen a complaint after 6 months either unless there are justifiable reasons for doing so. It has been routinely refusing access after 6 months if posts on this board are anything to go by.

Abil23

I resubmitted my claim in this basis, supplying additional evidence with relation to the fact that several members of staff had said that the PPI was compulsory. The bank had not responded to that point in their original rejection of my claim.
Today they have rejected me again, still without adequately addressing this, instead drawing my attention to leaflets they gave us at the time and saying that it was my responsibility to read the leaflets and make my own decision - even though their staff contradicted this in face to face meetings.
So I thought I could go to the ombudsman now. But my letter says 'as you did not refer your complaint in time the ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint'. Can they do that? Is this the end of the matter? Or is it worth trying the ombudsman anyway?

I wonder if anyone has been successful in these circumstances?

dunstonh

So I thought I could go to the ombudsman now. But my letter says 'as you did not refer your complaint in time the ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint'. Can they do that? Is this the end of the matter? Or is it worth trying the ombudsman anyway?

You get 6 months to refer your complaint to the FOS following the rejection. After that, you are timebarred from complaint unless there is a justifiable reason why the timebar should not be applied. The FOS generally consider incapacity and death of a close family member as being the sort of reason.

If the letter sent out originally had the correct address on it, then it is deemed to have been received.

[Deleted User]

Because some previously rejected complaints (notably from Lloyds who received a fine) are being looked at again automatically, this site has been suggesting that people should make a NEW complaint and so perhaps get access to FOS.

Here's the actual text:

MSE_article wrote:

"The PPI story is always changing and we hear new stories of bad practice all the time. If you're at all concerned that your past complaint wasn't dealt with fairly you have the right to carry on to the independent Ombudsman, or ask your lender to reopen your case.

If you received the bank's final response within the last six months take your case to the Ombudsman. Follow the steps below to carry on.

If it's been over six months, the Ombudsman can't take on the case until it's been via the bank again. To do that, just file a fresh complaint with the bank using the templates below if needed. Ensure you include any new information that you think affects your complaint and state why you're asking it to reopen the case.

Then if your bank rejects you again, you can go to the Ombudsman. However, do note that you are time-barred from going to the Ombudsman with complaints if it's over six months since rejection so it may not take on your complaint - this is likely to be decided on a case-by-case basis."
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/ppi-credit-card-insurance#faq

So MSE is telling people to effectively waste their time complaining again in the hope that FOS will relax the six-month rule. The only people who might gain from this are those who may have been unfairly rejected in the past and neglected to refer to the Ombudsman, but even in this scenario, there would have to be very compelling evidence of mis-selling.

Abil23 wrote: »

I resubmitted my claim in this basis, supplying additional evidence with relation to the fact that several members of staff had said that the PPI was compulsory.

What evidence could you provide of staff saying this?

Did you submit recordings, for example?

A very weak complaint otherwise I'm afraid.

Insider101

Abil23 wrote: »

I resubmitted my claim in this basis, supplying additional evidence with relation to the fact that several members of staff had said that the PPI was compulsory. The bank had not responded to that point in their original rejection of my claim.
Today they have rejected me again, still without adequately addressing this, instead drawing my attention to leaflets they gave us at the time and saying that it was my responsibility to read the leaflets and make my own decision - even though their staff contradicted this in face to face meetings.
So I thought I could go to the ombudsman now. But my letter says 'as you did not refer your complaint in time the ombudsman will not have our permission to consider your complaint'. Can they do that? Is this the end of the matter? Or is it worth trying the ombudsman anyway?

I wonder if anyone has been successful in these circumstances?

What you need to appreciate is that the six month limit for FOS referral is not there just for the sake of it. There is a reason why they have it. That reason being that, whatever the rights or wrongs of the original situation, it is not right that it be allowed to drag on indefinitely. Memories fade, evidence gets destroyed and versions become more and more blurred. Six months is, under normal circumstances, more than sufficient to consider their response and decide whether you feel you are justified in taking the matter further. If not then the intention of the law is that the matter is closed.

If you could get around it just by making the same complaint again and then go to FOS then it would make the rule pointless. Martin is wrong on this one I am afraid. Unless you have mitigating circumstances, like the ones Dunstonh pointed out, then FOS cannot consider the matter and unless the bank voluntarily re-review the matter then that is the end of it.

magpiecottage

As a general rule, FOS will only look at a complaint more than six months after the firm issued the final response in three circumstances:

1. Exceptional circumstances. This means the like of serious illness or death of a close relation preventing a complaint being made sooner. Even then, FOS would expect it to be made as soon as reasonably practicable. So being seriously ill for three months and then complaining five years later will not cut it.
2. If the complaint was responded to on or after 9 July 2015, the business must make clear that it will not permit FOS to look at the complaint after the end of that time limit. If it does not say that in the rejection letter FOS can still look at it.
3. If the rejection letter is dated before 9 July 2015 and it is more than six months ago (which of course it now will be) then if it does not refer to the six month limit, FOS can still look at it.

In theory a case with a rejection letter more than six months ago that did refer to the six month limit could still be looked at if the firm agreed. However, the reality is that what happens is FOS contacts the firm and asks if it will allow it to. I think "no" is the usual answer.




This is all governed by FCA rule DISP 2.8.2 R, which has the force of law. So FOS is bound by it.

good-samaritan

Another thread where some information is correct and some is incorrect - but what do consumers with no financial knowledge believe - how do they separate fact from fiction? Martin was correct and so are some of the posters who disagree - how can that be?

Here goes with an attempt at some clarity . . .

The Time Bar rules are there for a reason - firms need to be held accountable for their sins but it is considered unreasonable to leave this liability open ended indefinitely. So the 6 + 3 rule applies - if date of sale is more than 6 years ago, you must complain within 3 years of becoming aware that a problem existed (or ought reasonably to have been aware a problem existed).

If you do complain in time and receive a Final Response, you have 6 months to go to FOS and if you do go through FOS, your complaint can only be assessed once. The FOS is not a lottery in which you can purchase multiple tickets until you win!

However, as with most things financial, there are circumstances and exemptions which can circumnavigate the 6 + 3, in particular if you just missed your 6 month FOS window and did not bother to escalate to FOS.

1. New facts are introduced which were not considered during the original investigation. This is much more likely if you did NOT go to FOS. FOS are very thorough and it is unlikely that they missed something.
2. The firms original investigation was flawed or inadequate. In 2014, the banks had to re-open 2.5 Million complaints because the investigations were inadequate.Yours could have been missed on the recall.
3. A new route to redress is discovered that means you can complain to a new entity (different to the original firm). This could be the principal in an agency relationship that was previously not known. Even the FOS are still learning about new agencies with most of the main ones only coming to light from 2013 onwards. So if this applies to your case and it was before 2013, you must try the new route.
4. A new technical/legal argument is introduced that even the FOS did not previously consider. These arguments are called Plevin and McWilliam and apply to EVERY PPI claim across EVERY type of finance. The FOS and FCA are still debating how these cases will be settled - the current proposal is that commissions over 50% will be refunded but this is not definite yet. If the 50% threshold is decided then you still have the option to go through small claims with a solicitor - this will get back 100% of the commissions with no threshold.
5. If you previously had a partial offer or "comparative redress" which made an offset for cheaper PPI which they thought you would have taken instead, then you can resubmit your claim to the firm and escalate to FOS if unhappy, even if more than 6 months has elapsed. This offset has now been discredited. Essentially, this is a new complaint that the original complaint was not dealt with properly.

So you can see that even if your case has been through the FOS and failed, there is at least one reason above that will allow you to try again. This is what Martin meant so he was not wrong - how could anybody even suggest such a thing of the man. Martin is never wrong about money!

Nasqueron

Yet another post riddled with inaccuracies - as your other username claimed to deal with PPI complaints, you should know that the FOS is not just one complaint, the first line is the adjudicator, the ombudsman can be appealed to as a second tier.

Plevin relates to commission for sales therefore logically CANNOT apply to every case nor does it mean you can re-open any PPI complaint outside the timebar

good-samaritan

Hello again Nasqueron, after your previous performance with sun73, I thought that you would have withdrawn from the forum in shame. But you are still determined to try to discredit everything that I write.

In one way you are correct, but not for the reason you state. Plevin only applies to EVERY case if the finance was open after 6th April 2008. I omitted this because I thought it was too much detail and from the sound of the poster, the finance was open after this date anyway.

I think that before you write anything else about Plevin, you should read the FCA Consultation paper CP15-39. It is over 100 pages long - enjoy it. Please pay particular attention to the following points;

5.20 Every type of policy, agreement and form of sale is included in Plevin. "However, we have not found any relevant differences in other types of PPI policy, credit agreement or form of sale, that lead us to conclude that the broad principle in Plevin, of the potential of undisclosed high commission on the PPI to create an unfair relationship between lender and borrower, should not be applied across more broadly."

5.23 - 5.71 2 step approach - whether you are the lender or the seller, you have an obligation to consider the Plevin argument in your complaint assessment. If the lender was also the seller, both Step 1 mis-sale and Step 2 Plevin steps have to be completed. If the lender was not also the seller, just the Step 2 Plevin step has to be completed.

5.87 Previously rejected complaints can all be re-opened. "However, a consumer may previously have made a complaint about a PPI sale that did not expressly raise undisclosed commission as an issue. If this complaint was rejected, and the underlying credit agreement falls within s.140A-B, then, in light of Plevin, we believe they remain free to raise this additional issue about the policy with the lender, who would have to assess that complaint against our proposed new rules and guidance at Step 2."

If you wish to challenge or disagree with the FCA then best of luck to you if you feel qualified to do so. Please can you post their response on here so we can all be enlightened by it. I would prefer to agree with the FCA and follow the advice in their Consultation Paper which means that consumers can now try again with their failed claims - as Martin correctly said.