Pick up old claim or start again?

seasonalbiz

Nasqueron wrote: »

If you are aware of the DISP rules on finance then I won't quote them in detail, but basically you have 6 years from taking out a product or 3 years from being made aware of a reason to complain about a product (whichever is longer) before a complaint can be time barred. If you complained in 2012 and were rejected then the 3 year time bar is in force (if they wish to invoke it).

The FOS allow 6 months to refer a rejection to them for consideration. Anything outside of this is also time barred (they will consider some outside this if there is a serious reason such as a cancer diagnosis).

A bank sending out a CCL (customer contact letter) is deemed by the FOS as sufficient to trigger the 3 year clock so if the letter was sent January 2014 (it is deemed as delivered 2 days after it was sent first class) then you not getting it until 2015 would mean this was also a 3 year rule being met. If the letter was sent inside 3 years (as of today) then you may get lucky as it would appear the bank either didn't notice you complained already; decided they might have made a mistake and asked you to contact them again; just sent it to everyone to cover their backs - you won't know unless you try and complain again. Obviously mentioning you already complained will probably cause them to reject it.



Sadly not true, there is a legal time bar in place to stop complaints dragging on forever. A criminal issue is different but then you would be pushing the police to convict the bank staff of a crime, not the civil issue of demanding money back. Don't forget that people who borrow money then skip their debts get their slate wiped clean after 6 years even if they deliberately didn't pay back their debts.



I am not aware of any court case where PPI miss-selling was proven to be a criminal issue so I can't comment on that



This is actually a claims company myth, most PPI covered the self employed, the only issue is where the policy would only pay out under particularly onerous conditions such as requiring the firm to be dissolved which the FOS have ruled on previously so will know which PPI products come under that

Much appreciated.

-taff

seasonalbiz wrote: »

Taff... you're suggestion banks aren't Machiavellian... i.e. cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous. I beg to differ, as if there weren't all of these - there would be no PPI scandal... but I accept your opinion in discussion.

So lets be frank, all I am trying to do here is reclaim money for a repayment protection scheme, which most likely would of not of protected me at all.

So lets make it simple. Don't reply unless you have something constructive to say, if you want to insult my inteligence - just call me a mug.

I'll be perfectly ok with that, because if you think the world of banking isn't unscrupulous, then your a mug and I wish you well in your life of passive stupidity.

There was no problem with PPI sold prior to it being decided that it was wrong. It's not a legal matter at all.
The bank is a big faceless entity run by people who are there to make money, but they are not cunning minds, wondering how to screw over someone who they have invited to complain again.

If all you're trying to do is complain and get some redress, then just complain, it's not difficult and it's in no way as convoluted as you seem to believe.

They invited you to complain again, so complain.

If that sounds like it's insulting your intelligence, that's your perception.

dunstonh

It is clear from post #3 that the OP does not like discussion that is not consistent with their opinion. Best thing to do is not engage with them and not help them.