Packaged Account

Donedoingdebt

Hi all, I hope this is the correct section to place this query. if not, please feel free to advise.

Today, my wife had a reply from Nat West detailing why they've refused her claim for a mis-sold packaged account (NAT West Advantage Gold).

Among other reasons that we feel can be challenged via the Financial Ombudsman, they also state that a complaint should have been raised within 6 years of the event (changing back to a fee free account) or, if later, 3 years from the date on which our customer first became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) they had cause to complain.

Her account was opened on 31/03/1994, upgraded to the Advantage Gold account on 25/09/2000 & then downgraded back to fee free on 03/06/2008.

So their statement of the timescales is correct, however we are all aware that PPI claims go back many years & my basic question is, does this extra time apply to other complaints such as packaged accounts or is she wasting her time contacting the Financial Ombudsman?

We feel that she may have a case in the part of their statement that details the 3 year period where she should have been aware she could complain. It's only since following Martin Lewis' advice on TV & this site that she became aware there could be any justification for a complaint.

Any advice appreciated, thanks.

Nearlyold

The time bar rules are 6 years from the event being complained about i.e. the date the card was upgraded (not the downgrade date) or if later 3 years from when you first realised there was a problem or ought to have reasonably been aware. Nat West are applying the 3 years time bar from the date you downgraded.
What were your complaint reasons? Did you complain that you were not made aware you could have an account with no fees, if so the time bar seems correct because at the point you downgraded you would have been aware "no fees" accounts were available.

There is no extra time allowed for PPI complaints the same time bar rules can be applied however in most cases there is nothing the bank can cite to start the 3 year clock ticking (which is why they send out "you may have been missold" letters in order to start the 3 year clock ticking)

dunstonh

Among other reasons that we feel can be challenged via the Financial Ombudsman, they also state that a complaint should have been raised within 6 years of the event (changing back to a fee free account) or, if later, 3 years from the date on which our customer first became aware (or ought reasonably to have become aware) they had cause to complain.

They dont even have to consider your complaint. So, there is no other things to challenge them on. If a complaint is barred then they dont even look at the reasons in detail. It hasn't got that far.

It should also be noted that the FOS are only overturning around 13% of rejected complaints. However, before they even look at it, they would have to overturn the time bar if they feel it has been applied incorrectly. Problem is that the timebar appears to have been applied correctly. A change in account is classed as a trigger to start the three year clock ticking.

however we are all aware that PPI claims go back many years & my basic question is, does this extra time apply to other complaints such as packaged accounts or is she wasting her time contacting the Financial Ombudsman?

There are no rules specific to certain products. It is the same rules for all. The 3/6 year timebar rules apply to PPI as well. Whilst some firms have created trigger points to allow the 3 year clock to apply, the vast majority of PPI sales never had a trigger point. So, whilst they may be past the 6 year rule, there is nothing to bar them under the 3 year rule and therefore cannot be timebarred.

We feel that she may have a case in the part of their statement that details the 3 year period where she should have been aware she could complain. It's only since following Martin Lewis' advice on TV & this site that she became aware there could be any justification for a complaint.

There is no grounds to get the timebar overruled there.

Martin Lewis on TV is not justification. Statistically, most packaged complaints fail and the FOS overturn rate is lower than the average across all products. So, whilst it may be getting media coverage from the consumer people, you have less chance of success on a complaint at the FOS than virtually any other financial product.